User talk:Guile's Theme

Some new users get fancy templates. You get a congratulations for handling yourself well on talk pages. Hope you stick around. Xan747 (talk) 10:56, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very kindly sir! I hope to as well. Guile's Theme (talk) 12:09, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Cmrc23 has given you a bear! Bears promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Bears must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bear, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of bears by adding {{subst:Bear}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

I see you're new here! I spotted your hard work and discussion, and I offer you this bear. Happy editing! Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 14:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

<3 /thank Guile's Theme (talk) 14:12, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Mikewem (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

And this explains you selectively choosing to remove key contextual info from the Background and instead bury it at the end of the article and only leaving the indirect reference of it on the grounds of 'no consensus for double mention'; where was the consensus on which of the double mention to remove? Then there comes the part where you dodged this question when challenged on it and refused to honestly engaged with arguments by just saying 'I disagree absent any logic or rational'. Guile's Theme (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I just wanted to comment that, while you're absolutely welcome to participate at Talk:Killing of Alex Pretti, you should take care to avoid bludgeoning the process, e.g by making lots of similar posts (especially long ones) for a given discussion topic. I'd also just caution you to make sure to assume good faith in other editors, even if they don't assume good faith in you—most editors really are here to build the best encyclopedia they can.

Let me know if I can help with anything! Placeholderer (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Just as a follow-up: looking at the talk page stats, as of now you've added ~26.9% of the text on the talk page and made 183 edits. That's almost twice as high as the next person and over twice as high as the next, respectively. Looking at your own stats, over a third your total edits have been to that talk page, and you've made twice as many edits to that talk page as you've made edits in all of mainspace. With all due respect, it's not a good look. I'd encourage you to find some more places in mainspace to work on, and at that talk page to think twice before replying further about if the reply adds more to the discussion or just reframes what's already been said.

It's not realistic to change everyone's mind in the discussion. It should get closed by an uninvolved editor who weighs people's arguments by consensus (not unanimity) and merit, and the more text they have to read the harder their job is Placeholderer (talk) 13:15, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

There is so much wrong with what you've said.

1) # of edits is irrelevant and terrible metric as much of them are me editing my replies to fix typos and make my points more clearly

2)I've not made any new replies to others in several days, 4 days to be exact I believe as the last 1 was Feb 6th or earlier, and since then only replied to those who replied to me to defend things I had already said days before.

3)An enormous % of my own text on the talk page is from the protected edit request I opened on the 2nd and that Pincrete has been dragging out a rather meritless discussion over I've tried to disengage from for 2 responses now.

4)Being the one to edit or comment most on the the talk page isn't a metric that violates any Wiki policy as things like WP:bludgeoning are much more nuanced than that.

5) As a result of the previous points this essentially constitutes WP:HUSH Guile's Theme (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not here to harass you. Placeholderer (talk) 13:46, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

"Examples include placing numerous false or questionable "warnings" on a user's talk page"; I certainly question them. Guile's Theme (talk) 13:51, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

3 comes across as trying to game the EC system. This morning you posted two comments, but they involved more than 25 edits. You should be better able to read/revise your comment prior to posting it. And no one is forcing you to continue replying. You are choosing to do this instead of walking away. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I think it is pretty inappropriate for an editor I've been debating against to encourage me to stop participating when they can't substantiate specifically in policy why I should do so especially when I've only been replying for days 4 days or more now. Of course you have a vested interest in me not replying.

3 comes across as trying to game the EC system.

?? Doesn't make a lick of sense tbh. Edit count system isn't formally part of wiki policy in any way.

You should be better able to read/revise your comment prior to posting it.

Is there anywhere in policy you can point to that takes issue with editing my own comments? Otherwise this is totally meritless and pointless and just WP:HUSH or harassment.

And no one is forcing you to continue replying.

Likewise, no one is forcing you to go count edits nor is there any actual reason to you've articulated. It would be ridiculous to attempt to accuse me of bludgeoning for replying to people who reply to me. Read more carefully what actually constitutes it; "Typically, this means making the same argument over and over and to different people in the same discussion or across related discussions.", I'm not doing that. I've only been replying to those who directly responded to me for 4+ days. And, "To falsely accuse someone of bludgeoning is considered uncivil, and should be avoided. Everyone should have the chance to express their views within reasonable limits. Sometimes, a long comment or replying multiple times is perfectly acceptable or needed for consensus building." Anyway anymore undue comments and I'll be administering an actually deserved WP:HUSH warning on your own page Guile's Theme (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't have any vested interest in your not replying. I was simply responding to your statement that "Pincrete has been dragging out a rather meritless discussion over I've tried to disengage from for 2 responses now," as it takes two (or more) people to engage in a "meritless discussion," and you can simply walk away instead of leaving it to Pincrete to do so or continuing said meritless discussion. It makes no sense for you to consider a discussion to be meritless yet continue to participate in it.

EC = extended confirmed (see WP:XC). It's the reason that you had to make an edit request instead of editing the article yourself. The relevant guideline is WP:PGAME. It is not against any policy to edit one's comments (though there are constraints if one does this after someone else has replied), but making 25+ edits to two comments is over the top. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't have any vested interest in your not replying

Except for the fact we have been debating opposing sides for about a week...

as it takes two (or more) people to engage in a "meritless discussion,"

Well... no. Pincrete continuously says things that are outright wrong, like when he said no sources talked about Pretti being armed in the Jan 13th video, and when I provide proof to the contrary, useful information to the article and discussion, he moves the goal post to an issue with a description being too short after first complaining describing the video would be too long in a way that was accusatory towards me. The one dragging out the discussion and making it meritless isn't myself but you're only here on my talk page vs his because you have a vested interest in silencing me. It really is that simple.

What constitutes 'gaming the system' per link:

Making unconstructive or trivial edits to raise your user access level.

It is a bit of a hilarious that the complaint somehow at the same time is that I comment too much but then somehow being accused of making trivial edits in an effort to 'game a system' I didn't know or care existed. Pick a complaint at the least and not 2 that largely ride against one another. Guile's Theme (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

The one dragging out the discussion and making it meritless isn't myself but you're only here on my talk page vs his because you have a vested interest in silencing me. It really is that simple. ... It is a bit of a hilarious that the complaint somehow at the same time is that I comment too much but then somehow being accused of making trivial edits in an effort to 'game a system' I didn't know or care existed.

No, it isn't that simple. First, again, it takes two or more to have a discussion. Pincrete cannot have a discussion by themself. Second, that you and I have different views about the Pretti article does not imply that I have a vested interest in silencing you. WP is stronger for people having different views and trying to reach consensus about topics of disagreement, as long as consensus is the goal. Third, edits and comments are distiinct. I'm on your talk page rather than Pincrete's because of your large edit:comment ratio (not because of your comments per se) and my concern about your trying to game EC status, something that isn't true for Pincrete. I'm surprised that you don't care whether you have to make edit requests instead of directly editing an article. But if I'm wrong about your having dual motives, my apology. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Pincrete cannot have a discussion by themself.

But they can make it meritless by themselves by being pedantic, raising meritless point, or constantly moving the goalpost. Examples in regardless to Pincrete from that discussion:

I think I'm right when I say that only a few sources record the 'maybe gun' (obviously it isn't a very long or clear video

Totally wrong. Sources provided to demonstrate.

"So, when you speak of him being armed in the same manner to the day he was shot (a parallel I haven't seen made by any WP:RS btw), is that intended to mean "legally carrying a licensed firearm ⸮⸮⸮.

"while armed in the same manner as the day he was shot could mean anything. Was he was legally armed? Visibly armed? Heavily armed?"

When how he was armed is already specified in the article.

If not, how is it any more relevant than the colour of his trousers?"

And I've already tried to disengage from him twice because I have a hard time believing someone who says that is actually arguing in good faith.

To be clear, I'm not going out to reply to all his comments across the talk page to disagree with him. He replies to me and then moves the goalpost to new complaints when the original ones prove unfounded. Yet you come to complain on my talk page in which I feel there is little impartiality.

I'm surprised that you don't care whether you have to make edit requests instead of directly editing an article.

I do not. To be honest I'm much more concerned about the sort of users with clearly problematic user histories I've seen editing the article and participating in the talk page having such edit privilege rather than not having it myself. They clearly need to be more difficult to get and revoked more forcefully for users repeatedly blocked/penalized.Guile's Theme (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

One last comment: editors are advised to follow these guidelines when editing a comment after someone has already replied (e.g., as you did here) or if a period of time has occurred. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:25, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

See your talk page. Guile's Theme (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Well... no. Pincrete continuously says things that are outright wrong, like when he said no sources talked about Pretti being armed in the Jan 13th video, Actually I have NEVER said that no sources talked about Pretti being armed in the Jan 13th video, I've even talked about having read such sources. I believe. What I have repeatedly said, and repeatedly explained is that "no sources talked about Pretti being armed in the same manner at the two events". AFAIK, this is true.

It is important AFAI am concerned because "in the same manner" is very vague but appears to imply something but doesn't really communicate anything specific or material IMO. It could mean almost anything. I have also repeatedly said that drawing parallels between the two events, apart from probably being WP:OR, is unhelpful, unecessary, and less concise. If other editors think that it is relevant that he was armed at the 'taillight' incident, we'll simply say so, if they don't (or we think that too much space is being devoted to that incident), we won't.

No reply to this is needed, but if you do reply, please 'ping'. I was only aware of this as another editor 'named me' as a courtesy, because I was being talked about. Pincrete (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

@Pincrete Apologies for involving you here but I was essentially catching flak for responding to your previous 2 replies in my protected edit request from February 2nd so I inevitably did...

Actually I have NEVER said that no sources talked about Pretti being armed in the Jan 13th video

True, you didn't quite say that, but what you said was still off the mark ie, I think I'm right when I say that only a few sources record the 'maybe gun' (obviously it isn't a very long or clear video, which simply isn't true, the sources make clear it was a gun, described in the same manner, ie tucked in his waistband, as is described/seen in the videos of his shooting, and it is mentioned in most of of the sources that focus on the January 13th video or certainly no shortage of them.

because "in the same manner" is very vague

But somehow saying just that he was 'armed' is less vague?? Saying he is 'armed in the same manner' makes the parts of the article where it already specified Pretti had a handgun and was licensed to carry apply to it as well without repeating itself needlessly. That is all it was meant to do and all I think it does do. Nothing more, nothing less.

And as I've also already said several times the point was more to demonstrate concision, at your prompting, rather than be wedded to any specific language... I'm fine with an alternative being proposed but I don't understand complaining it is too vague and then keeping it even more vague by merely saying 'armed' unless the point is just to then make an effort to exclude the information entirely by then saying 'it takes too long to describe'...

appears to imply something

We've been over this. It doesn't imply anything and to be honest I find your hyper sensitivity to the phrasing more indicative of your own preconceptions of what you want the article to be.

I have also repeatedly said that drawing parallels between the two events, apart from probably being WP:OR, is unhelpful

I do not feel I'm drawing a parallel. He was armed in the same manner. Those words are true irrespective of any parallel you feel is being drawn. You might not like the words. But they are 100% true and I think calling it OR is more technicality and wiki lawyering than fair engagement. Notice I didn't say he was armed with the exact same gun. That can't be confirmed and wasn't stated. But sources describe him armed in the exact same way in each video, and you can literally see in video published by the sources he was armed the same way. I feel your issue is ultimately a purely semantic one and not one regarding point of fact or truth. Guile's Theme (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

So apologies for "involving me" (which I don't care about at all) but no apologies for claiming that I had said something repeatedly which I clearly had never said at all (which I do care about, as would most people). You are perfectly entitled to think that the distinction I was making was pedantic, or purely semantic if you want. You aren't entitled to misrepresent what I said when attempting to justify your behaviour to another editor though.

I can't be bothered to respond to your other points and won't be making any further comments here. Good Night. Pincrete (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

but no apologies for claiming that I had said something repeatedly which I clearly had never said at all

Fair enough, I apologize for misremembering or exaggerating what you said, but what you did say still wasn't quite correct so I cannot apologize for that aspect. Guile's Theme (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding talk page best practices. The thread is User:Guile's Theme. Placeholderer (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Acroterion (talk) 14:37, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

This is probably your only chance to adjust your way of interacting with the community. Please be aware that you may lose talkpage access and/.or be blocked indefinitely if you repeat on this talkpage verbose arguments that you've done nothing at all that is objectionable. You are expected to address your behavior you've been repeatedly warned about, and only your behavior, and how you will reconsider your approach to editing Wikipedia during the term of this block. Nothing else. Acroterion (talk) 14:40, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Nothing has been substantiated so I don't see how I can agree. I didn't meet a single metric I can see in the bludgeoning page and none had any been highlighted. This has damaged my perception of Wikipedia irrevocably. I also believe a reason given for the ban was 'bludgeoning' the ANI discussion, which I'm pretty sure you can't do when you are the subject of the dispute itself and defending yourself so improper on multiple levels as far as my understanding of policy goes. Guile's Theme (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

You should read WP:SATISFY. It is not the role of other editors to satisfy you that concerns are justified or substantiated, only that the community is satisfied that you have exceeded the bounds set by the community, and that you are expected to address your conduct on those terms. Acroterion (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

WP:CANVASSING There are over 20 editors who took part in the talk page for Alex Pretti and almost every single one of the ones pinged who came to speak on the ANI page where ones on the opposing side of a discussion, or that I've had adversarial interactions with in the past 8 days. Almost all of the users who were on the opposing side of the discussion came to comment; one they are losing at least based off of !votes. At least some of those comments do not feel entirely unbiased and fair in who it is coming from.

Also while no one is required to satisfy anyone I would think doing more than vague accusations would be in order when accusing others of impropriety. Also, hard to get people to change their behavior if you won't explain what is wrong with it beyond vague accusation.

I repeat there is no clear part of the Bludgeoning page I can see that I violated nor one correctly highlighted to me. I say that from a place of honesty and confusion rather than trying to be adversarial or ego driven. It also says, "Asking for a clarification is fine, as long as you aren't demanding.", and I think all I've asked for is more than vague accusations. Guile's Theme (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I do admit I should have been more receptive to the warning about gaming the system, which at the time I didn't really know existed, and I probably 'snapped' at FactOrOpinion too harshly when they made the redacted comment because it felt like I was getting dog piled by users I'd been debating against and also a moving of the goal post when I wasn't getting it explained to me how I was actually bludgeoning which was the initial and primary complaint... Guile's Theme (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

In the nicest possible way, please do yourself a favour, and drop the stick. You've only been blocked for 2.5 days, but you can very easily turn that into a longer block, and that helps no one. Just forget about Wikipedia for a few days, and go do something useful in the real world – walk your dog or mow your lawn or join a litter patrol or whatever. Wikipedia is important, but it's not all-important, and it will still be here when you come back. And when you do, with a bit of luck this'll all be water under the bridge and you'll wonder what the fuss was about. None of this is worth getting too worked-up about, and sometimes the smart move is to just do something else for a change of perspective. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

As I noted at ANI, you're showing no understanding of the essay. It's definitely not intending to establish certain criteria you need to meet but simply giving fairly extreme examples. An editor being slightly less than the example given will often be bludgeoning as well. This is especially the case for such a long discussion as the Alex Pretti one, since 26% means 2821 words and 23 comments. (Having 26% in a very short discussion e.g. where it means you've only used 200 words will be much less concerning.) Editing Wikipedia requires editors to be able to collaborate and take on board concerns and understand the principles behind our policies and guidelines and to some extent even our essays, per WP:NOTBURO and Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. Editors who require hard and fast rules generally cannot survive here. A good example is edit warring, while more than 3 reverts in a 24 hour period is a bright line violation per WP:3RR, there is a lot of edit warring that happens without such bright line violations. Editors who insist they are not edit warring because there's no bright line they violated are a major problem. Nil Einne (talk) 03:41, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

BTW it's definitely possible to bludgeon a discussion about you. In fact, I'm fairly sure it's very common someone raises concerns over bludgeoning at ANI and the editor well demonstrates it in their responses to these concerns which is part of what leads to their block or ban. Nil Einne (talk) 03:46, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I apologize; I truly believed per the LEEWAY part of the bludgeoning page that the one place I could not actually be accused of bludgeoning was while defending myself on an admin page and I indicated as such in one of my responses to EducatedRedneck. I certainly felt like I had something at stake to animate me there as well. Clearly I was wrong.

I'm still something of a loss because I'd already been trying to limit my participation since Feb 6th and still ended up being blocked and will likely be blocked indef in short order as a result of any future altercation with this on my record. I make this response in fear anything I say or do other than be 100% silent will be used as a mark against me and that will probably persist in some form after the ban wears off assuming it doesn't get extended to indef before then. Guile's Theme (talk) 04:33, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

We give people lots of leeway at ANI, but it's possible to use it up in walls of repetitive text. Really, all we're asking is that you recognize a tendency to generate lots of words that repeat the same things over and over, and that people aren't interested in reading all that. Wikipedia isn't a court, it's an encyclopedia, and things that take time away from the encyclopedia, like reading thousands of words asserting you've done nothing at all wrong after you've been unanimously advised that you have, are regarded with disfavor. You managed to exhaust the patience of ToBeFree and Doug Weller, two of our most experienced administrators, as well as other editors who've interacted with you, before you ever made it to ANI. That calls for some introspection on your part. Acroterion (talk) 04:47, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I wave the flag Guile's Theme (talk) 05:14, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree with DoubleGrazing. But did you read Acroterion's block notice — the yellow box — all the way through, Guile's Theme? It tells you how you can appeal the block to an uninvolved admin. You add the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} , curly brackets and all, to this page, while replacing the words "Your reason here" with the actual reason/s why you think you should be unblocked. (Think carefully about what to put there, don't write fast.) If you do it that way, it will call an uninvolved admin to this page to evaluate your reasons. Wouldn't that be better? If you simply go on talking, as you seem to be doing, it won't call another admin here. Bishonen | tålk 09:29, 12 February 2026 (UTC).

Thank you but no thanks, I feel rather disrespected disillusioned constantly being told what I write is a walloftext as if it is worthless. I clearly have a different standard of what constitutes proper and thorough discussion. I reread what I wrote and I almost never find it very repetitive and why leave openings for people to reply which will just lead to a longer discussion with more back and forths? Being completionist is a sin here unlike that I've ever seen anywhere else which is odd for an Encyclopedia. You are shackled by the AGF aspect when dealing with people obviously operating on political vendettas given their user history. And in being told so often I need to respect others time I ultimately only felt like my own time and effort was not being respected. I feel the article I was participating in was essentially being stonewalled, so they wear you down with tedious and pedantic stuff, and then when they smell any weakness, frustration, or blood they will swarm like Piranhas for trying to hard too break through their stonewall. Not unlike what imo is described in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civil_POV_pushing.

"As a result of the Arbitration Committee's failure to deal with these issues, the committee has effectively abdicated the responsibility for ensuring neutrality, verifiability, and other content standards to a few users (mostly, but not entirely admins) who patrol these articles and attempt to keep them free of disruption. These users are generally very knowledgeable about the subject and committed to Wikipedia's policies on proper sourcing and appropriate weight. "Unfortunately, they tend to burn out. Usually they burn out in one of two ways. The impatient ones tend to become angry as a result of the seemingly never-ending problems these articles cause, become uncivil, and get sanctioned by ArbCom for incivility. The patient ones tend to go more quietly. They become disillusioned by the never-ending problems and the lack of support from the Wikipedia community, and stop editing on these topics or quit the site entirely." I feel I've been on both ends of that somewhat even as a new editor, encapsulating the latter example I was so exhausted by just preventing what amounted to vandalism on another page last October, it took over 49 pages of discussion, that I took a long break from wiki without making any of the article improvements that could have been made in the course of all that research through sources. Now recently to the former example I feel somewhat goaded into incivility of one form or another via the attrition method although I take responsibility for my behavior and actions.

Wikipedia likely has some degree of issue with an in built systemic bias because probably there is some overlap in the type of people who have the time and see this worth putting their effort into and who then chase others out on tribal grounds naturally. And like many things that happen most insidiously it isn't a coordinated effort but that of many individuals coalescing.

I've also been contributing to Grokipedia instead in the meantime and honestly find it a breath of fresh air. No people with insecure egos, no 'senior' editors out to bully newer ones or feeling the need to throw their weight around, no complaints about length, no bias or agenda, no mob mentality, everything is done on merit of what you say in sources with a fair non-biased arbiter, you get so much more done and deal with none of POV or factionalism you deal with here. And this is probably most true on contentious topics. Guile's Theme (talk) 13:29, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

You don't seem very receptive to advice, but I'll say one more thing, before I unwatch this page. Your current block will expire in ~1.5 days, but unless you adjust your approach, you'll almost certainly get yourself blocked again, and the next one may well be indef. At this point in time, you have full control over your destiny. I would suggest that you stop treating others as adversaries, stop insisting that you know every policy and guideline best, and learn to resist the urge to respond to everything with chapter and verse – but you do you, of course. Just remember that your future here is entirely in your hands. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:54, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm currently convinced since I've already upset such senior editors I already have a target on my back either way. It is clear from the ANI discussion many have already been baying for my head to roll. I imagine on any technicality I will be blocked from here on out. Guile's Theme (talk) 13:59, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

You've put one on your back by being so aggressive and downright rude. Same thing with the blocks of text and arguing over policy examples. ThatTrainGuy1945 (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

wave the flag People want a beaten dog; not a dog who understands. So a beaten dog you shall have. Guile's Theme (talk) 14:45, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Enjoy Grokipedia. ThatTrainGuy1945 (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

): Even waving the flag doesn't work

Guile's Theme (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Just in case nobody told you, you're not supposed to edit your comments once they've been responded to, per WP:REDACT. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Some parts I changed to soften the tone, because I am kind of upset, others because of impropriety it was leading to me be accused of which seemed like grounds for removal if people take issue with it. And some like the most recent change I made was to reduce redundancy and shorten length of a reply per complaints about length. I can undo these if you prefer. Guile's Theme (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:REDACT, you should have put an edited notification. ThatTrainGuy1945 (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Fixing it retroactively to be as it should then as best as I'm able. (Edit): Done I believe; the one thing I did not add back struck through was the aspersion I cast on one other user as it doesn't appear to change the context of Doublegrazing's reply and I'm not sure it would be correct to add back even struckthrough now. Although I'd argue nothing I removed really changed the context of replies and mostly softened tone I'd really best not argue anything. Guile's Theme (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

As a dog owner with a lot of training , I can assure you people want a dog that understands. Doug Weller talk 17:49, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey, I just left a message at ANI to try and explain a few things that I think could have been made clearer. While you can't reply there for the next day or so, you can reply to this message with any questions that you might have. Keep in mind that I'm also a fairly new user, so I don't have the same intimate policy knowledge as some of the others on that board, so I might not be able to answer all of your questions. JarJarInks_{٩(◕_◕)۶}^{Tones essay} 18:37, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the offer to help; I really do appreciate it. I will look later though as I think it is best now if I blow off steam and largely disengage until the end of my ban as I've become too invested and allowed it to affect my mood. My own dog could do with some extra attention. Guile's Theme (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Good idea, it's usually best to step back and WP:COOL off when you feel yourself getting heated over editing. I personally use a script that effectively blocks me from editing for a period of time when I start getting pissed off to make sure I don't accidentally say something I'll regret later. I wish I had some constructive advice to offer,(though I'll reiterate what I said at ANI: JarJarInks's offered great advice there) but I'm optimistic that eventually the events leading up to this point will, in hindsight, just be an unfortunately rocky start to an otherwise productive time on Wikipedia. There's experienced editors on here that caught blocks early on for much worse than what's happened here. ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she) 19:00, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		I was honestly so nervous that your experience at WP:ANI would have stopped you from any future contributions. I was so glad I remembered to check back in and saw your recent contribs! Not only have you continued editing, your actions in recent discussions have been downright exemplary. Even in some extremely rough () discussions, you continued to AGF until it was genuinely no longer possible, and kept your cool far longer than I probably would have been able to. I'd still work on the length of your responses a little bit, but compared to your initial issue it's barely even a problem. I can't wait to see where your editing goes in the future, and I'm so grateful that you decided to stick around. Let me know if there are any other rules or discussions that need some explanation, or anything else you might need. Enjoy Wikipedia! JarJarInks٩(◕_◕)۶Tones essay 18:37, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

JarJarInks_{٩(◕_◕)۶}^{Tones essay} 18:37, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

If you're looking for feedback, I do have a couple of suggestions.

1. Try to focus more on editing articles than discussing on talk pages. That'll help you learn more about WP policies and help the project.

2. If it's clear that a discussion isn't going anywhere, and it's not something like ANI where you need to be there, try to disengage fully if you can, or take a break if you can't. Arguing in circles only makes both parties frustrated. If you think there are still points to be made or that the discussion needs to continue, try WP:3O if it's applicable.

Other than that, you're doing absolutely fantastic. Keep up the good work! JarJarInks_{٩(◕_◕)۶}^{Tones essay} 18:49, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the advice and help! I shall do my utmost to put it into practice. Guile's Theme (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

One last thing: It can be really helpful to other editors to introduce yourself on your userpage. For example, my userpage explains what I tend to edit and when, some of the groups I've joined, and a photo of my dogs for a personal touch. LaffyTaffer, another user that participated in the ANI discussion, introduces themself by a nickname, states what they like to do on-wiki, and lists some of their Barnstars (like the one I gave you) and editing stats. I'm not saying that you need to put tons of information on there, but just having "Hi, please do not template me. I will instantly revert it. Thanks" makes you come off as not open to feedback, which can definitely give the wrong impression. Maybe adding a short introduction and a few topics you're interested in could help other editors better understand you, and allow for more pleasant and productive discussions.

I also noticed that you removed the Contentious Topics template from your talk page. By doing that, you've acknowledged that you've read and will adhere to the rules that govern those topics. Unfortunately, one of those rules is that you must be Extended confirmed status in order to edit in the Arab–Israeli conflict area. While you do have over 500 edits and your account is more than 30 days old, your automatic EC status was revoked here because you haven't made enough direct edits to actual articles. The revocation wasn't a punishment; its just that because you've made so few edits to articles, it's unclear if you have enough experience on WP to edit in that area. If you want to edit pages related to the conflict, including talk pages for those articles, you need to make at least 500 edits to other articles, and then request the permissions here. Until you are given that permission, you cannot edit those pages.

I know Wikipedia can be extremely confusing, especially as a new editor. But these policies are in place for good reasons. If you're curious, there are 5 separate ArbCom cases relating to the conflict that established these rules. You can find them at ARBPIA, ARBPIA2, ARBPIA3, ARBPIA4, and ARBPIA5. Nobody is expecting you to read all of these, least of all me, but it might help you understand why these rules exist if you're interested. JarJarInks_{٩(◕_◕)۶}^{Tones essay} 17:07, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Jumping in just since I was pinged. The info about CTs is good, but I'd like to note that the userpage thing isn't a particularly big deal at all. Having an informative userpage can be nice, but plenty of folks have blank userpages, redirects to their talk page, etc. What's there may come off as a little bit abrasive I suppose, but we're all hopefully mature enough to handle that when it's not uncivil. I think it's perfectly reasonable to request not to be templated (even if I'm personally an advocate for templating the regulars). ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she) 17:23, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi. In this edit you add references that are not defined. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:26, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, fixed. Guile's Theme (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Rosenstk-Scharl-Schier-2016 is still missing Johnjbarton (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Added again, not sure if I didn't save the edit it or what happend. Guile's Theme (talk) 01:11, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Copper, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A dates error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 02:20, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi there. I participate in Project Check Wikipedia. I fixed a couple of errors flagged in the Coptic language article, and noticed that an edit you made re-introduced the errors. I have fixed them again, and thought it would be helpful to explain a little further.

• Error titled 'tag with incorrect syntax': this relates to the use of break tags. Per H:BR, 'MediaWiki also converts </br> to <br />, but this form is invalid. Please correct these tags.' Changing the tag from the valid <br /> syntax back to the invalid </br> syntax results in an error being flagged. Please use <br /> or one of the other acceptable syntaxes listed at H:BR.

• Error titled 'title linked in text': this relates to wikilinking an article to itself. Per What generally should not be linked, subsection MOS:CIRCULAR, 'Do not link to pages that redirect back to the page the link is on (unless the link is to a redirect with possibilities that links to an appropriate section of the current article).' If you wish to bring emphasis to the subject mentioned in its own article, using ''' triple quotes around a term will result in boldface. MOS:BOLD and MOS:EMPHASIS have guidance on when and how to do so appropriately.

Thanks, and happy editing! Pikkupapupata ^💌 🌷 14:19, 25 June 2026 (UTC)