Hello, Wh1pla5h99! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ateba Gautier until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Jack the Ripper, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Hi. Thanks for your edits on the Jack the Ripper page. Hope you did not feel uncomfortable with the edit summary I made (but I can understand if you did but it was not my intention). Consensus governs as per the community, and the article has over 1,450 watchers and is FA status. I note you have only been active on here for six months. Hope you stay. All I would suggest is if you make major edits to an article as watched as this it may be best if you do them piece by piece so not only will extensive work not potentially be lost if consensus is to revert but it will be easier for editors to scrutinize. :) Thanks again, and all the best. K. Kieronoldham (talk) 01:43, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, I mistakenly published some very premature changes the other day so I understand the concern. Will take that advice on board. Having said that, I can't think of any reason for a revert (besides minor typos etc.), at least as far as the referencing changes per WP:DUPREF are concerned. All the best. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 01:49, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Information icon Hello, I'm Dr vulpes. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be gaming the system. Gaming the system is defined as misusing Wikipedia's policies for personal advantage at the expense of other editors. Wikipedia policies exist to support constructive collaboration, not to be used tactically to disrupt or "win" disputes. Gaming the system is easily spotted and your contributions are always public.
Examples of gaming the system may include, but are not limited to:
Wikilawyering — excessively literal or selective interpretation of policies to sidestep their intent
Cherry-picking wording from a policy to support a view that does not in fact match with or comply with policy
Repeatedly pushing a viewpoint with which the community consensus clearly does not agree
Gaslighting — such as rewriting history or denying clear evidence of prior actions
Abuse of process, including but not limited to gaming of the AfC process (ex: removing the record of previous reviews)
Deliberately reverting another editor's edits in one article in retaliation for a dispute elsewhere
Making unconstructive or trivial edits to raise your user access level
From WP:GAME: If an editor finds and uses a loophole or trick that allows them to evade community standards or misuse administrator tools, it should not be treated the same as a good-faith mistake. However, Wikipedia sanctions are meant to be preventative, not punitive. A warning from an administrator is usually the best way to prevent gaming, because a clear warning should help correct both good-faith mistakes and bad-faith games. If an editor ignores a warning and repeats their behavior, or if they find new creative ways to achieve the same disruption, it is likely that editor is gaming the system in bad faith. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 05:39, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I now understand that Wikipedia:Gaming the system is an offence, and a blockable one. Specifically, I was spam-editing my own talk page, which I was naively unaware was being monitored. My intention was not to raise my access level for editing; I was actually trying to access the Wikipedia Library, to read a particular article in Oxford Reference (Language For Specific Purposes - relating to WP articles I have been editing), and I got a little impatient (it requires 500 edits). Had I received warning prior to this block I would certainly have heeded the warning (in fact I did stop as soon as my edits were reverted). Per WP:GAME: "A warning from an administrator is usually the best way to prevent gaming". As my past edits will show, I am committed to the overall improvement of this website. I would be very grateful if that commitment is not thrown away because of this lapse of judgement. I can assure you that I won't engage in any manipulation again. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 05:07, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Hello, Wh1pla5h99. Per your request, your account has been grantedtemporary-account-viewer rights. You are now able to reveal the IP addresses of individuals using temporary accounts that are not visible to the general public. This is very sensitive information that is only to be used to aid in anti-abuse workflows. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer for more information on this user right. It is important to remember:
Access must not be used for political control, to apply pressure on editors, or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to investigate a temporary user. Note that using multiple temporary accounts is not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of policies (for example, block or ban evasion).
It is also important to note that the following actions are logged for others to see:
When a user accepts the preference that enables or disables IP reveal for their account.
Revealing an IP address of a temporary account.
Listing the temporary accounts that are associated with one or more IP addresses (using the CIDR notation format).
Remember, even if a user is violating policy, avoid revealing personal information if possible. Use temporary account usernames rather than disclosing IP addresses directly, or give information such as same network/not same network or similar. If you do not want the user right anymore then please ask me or another administrator and it will be removed for you. You may also voluntarily give up access at any time by visiting Special:Preferences. Happy editing! Toadspike[Talk]11:17, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You have recently edited a page related to living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles, 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:
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.
Thanks for your advice, but that was and is my position with regards to flippant comments from certain quarters. It was addressed and we have moved on; no need to pile on in my talk page after the fact. Thanks. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I came here to say the same thing. Personal attacks, even on editors who are uncivil to you or others, undermine this project - and also undermine the case you are trying to make. Please avoid commenting on editors and comment only on the content. BobFromBrockley (talk) 02:49, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In all honesty I think you are completely bombarding my talk page with nonsense, and if you don't stop you can be sure I will take it to AN. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Wh1pla5h99, I trust you find this critique more palatable, as it originates from those of a commensurate perspective. I posit that your comment was flagrantly uncivil; I would even delineate it as analogous to M.Bitton's asperity whose ubiquity you yourself have heretofore chronicled. While I abstain from such measures, if you wish to circumvent an eventual citation before AN, you would be well-advised to temper your invective and either respond with constructive cogency or eschew further discourse entirely. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 21:24, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
NW, there is no law against profanity on Wikipedia, and it can be very appropriate indeed when the occasion calls for it. The provenance is, I maintain, piss-poor. As none of us are responsible for it, we ought not to take offense on its behalf. Thanks for your concern. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, indeed there is no such rule. In truth I find your humour amusing, and it would be sad to see you face consequences for these misdemeanors. On a more personal note, I myself am inherently more susceptible to taking offense from such language, and thus felt the need to give my you two cents. Anyhow, you do you.
So I know the atmosphere at Talk:Zionism has been less than collegial. But just so you know, I neither dish out, nor take, incivility. I don't find this comment to be called for[1]. And if I ever make a rude comment, feel free to call me out on that. To answer your question at hand, multiple users supported the option[2][3][4].
I'm afraid those multiple comments come from a previous RfC that was widely rejected. I would appreciate it if you were more cautious when adding options, so that we do not end up with another failed, rejected RfC.
Please tone down the personalization of your talk page editing. Comments like this one and this one only serve to further increase the temperature in this already contentious topic area. Please try to make your points in a more polite manner. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just to avoid bloating the case, I'll bring here that self-deprecating humor like As for keeping my reputation for witty repartee intact, I'm afraid that such a reputation would have to exist first works most places here on WP, even in contentious topcs and at noticeboards. :) Valereee (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Information icon You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Valereee (talk) 13:35, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Information icon You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Valereee (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me (although I’m a novice closer) and involved. Thanks for the work. If I’d offer one bit of coaching it’d be to avoid the 88 critic score or anything that gives a hint of Wikipedia:Supervote. No need to change this one, just thought I would offer the feedback. Dw31415 (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That reversion (which was only half of the content that I have removed) was illegitimate on the grounds that it happened a whole month after the initial removal. The rest of the content was then added back many months later. I don't think reversions that happen months after a change is made are above challenge, otherwise people could revert content that has been added many months, even years ago and claim that it should not be restored until positive consensus. Those restrictions must have a time scale, and if people have accepted the removal of content for a month or longer then I don't see how restoring it, without first consulting talk, is acceptable.
A much better way to handle this clearly disputed content, that was tendentiously restored (by an editor who is currently banned from the page), is to discuss it and find a way to include it for which there is consensus. People are clearly attempting to look for a compromise here, and I suggest you join in. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You made the revert less than 20 minutes before the last revert[5]. Anyway, since it appears you either won't abide by the rule, or interpret the rule differently, I've posted about this at AE.VR(Please ping on reply)17:02, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wh1pla5h99, I get it. Sometimes it can feel like everyone is ignoring the point you're making and like you're just being ganged up on by people trying to score points and end the argument. I feel this way often too, and it's natural to feel this way. There have been times, even recently, where I was the one arguing against 5 others at once on a talk page. But I think it's important to realize that whenever enough people disagree with you, it's easy to get defensive and much harder to take a step back, distance yourself from the situation, and approach it once you are no longer emotionally invested with some new perspective.
Since you're probably angry at me, maybe it would give you some catharsis to see a time recently where I was the one who lost perspective and needed to step back and listen. I used AI for something just like you, which was met with extreme backlash. It happens to everyone, which is totally natural and fine. We just gotta do our best to realize when we're standing on a lost cause and move on, and then later we can reflect on what happened and make a plan for what to do differently next time. It's no big deal and no hard feelings. We're all constantly learning, including myself. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am not angry at all. We were simply having a disagreement - perfectly ok! No need to make it into something else. As this is WP:NOTAFORUM, please refrain from the odd personal messages on my talk page, even if well-intentioned. Thanks. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You may appeal this warning using the appeal process and the arbitration enforcement appeals template. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this warning, it remains current until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything above is unclear to you. Sennecaster (Chat) 15:13, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the above discussion as I was posting this warning; at this point, we need you to adjust how you are phrasing your replies to others. Two people left you well-intentioned reminders, and you replied by dismissing them outright and telling them to not post on your talk page again. They are not telling you these things for no reason, they are trying to prevent you from being sanctioned so you can participate in the areas you like writing about. If you don't take their advice, and the advice given to you at the AE thread, you will likely be sanctioned with a topic ban or block. Sennecaster (Chat) 15:38, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies; I was led to believe that it was acceptable to ask others to refrain from posting to your talk. Maybe I shouldn't have branded the second message "odd". Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 15:44, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wh1, it is acceptable to ask someone not to post to your user talk. Unless their posting to your user talk is or is bordering on harassment, it's a risky move, as the way people generally work out their problems with other editors is to go to the other editor's talk and start a discussion. The way newer users learn the culture/expectations/standards here is from other editors coming in and saying things like "Please try to de-escalate" or "Here's a similar situation I was in recently and what I learned from it" and such.
And, crucially, if editors can't post to your talk, you force them to handle any concerns they have by dragging you to noticeboards. I don't think there's an experienced editor on this project who will disagree with me when I say: You want to avoid noticeboards as much as possible. Bad things happen at noticeboards, whether you're the person being dragged there or the person doing the dragging. Valereee (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I made a typo. Which I found before your little snipe. Please WP:FOC. I have grown deeply tired of your constant personal attacks. You will note I provided a definition that corresponds to Wikipedia's article on the topic without even realizing it wasn't a red-link. Simonm223 (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You may appeal this topic ban using the appeal process and the arbitration enforcement appeals template. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this topic ban, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything above is unclear to you. Sennecaster (Chat) 21:34, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so here’s the thing. You’ve got yourself a reputation for delivering zingers in places zingers are absolutely not helpful. So you delivered this one, literally within days after you were formally warned. WTF?
WhyTF didn’t you just say "Oh, there actually is an article, it’s at Epistemicide." No one would even have questioned that. But instead you had to deliver a zinger, in a CTOPs: If you want to look like you know what you're talking about it helps to spell it correctly. Why TF would you say such a thing when you know you’ve already got a reputation for not behaving collegially in CTOPs?
Seriously, Wh1. You're obviously smart, a good writer. We'd love to have you work here. But if you literally cannot control yourself, you need to find another hobby. Valereee (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, I never claimed to be perfect. Can't say I haven't learnt a lot about how disparate voices are handled around here. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 11:23, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Disparate ≠ Disruptive. You can disagree without being disagreeable, and that should be the goal anywhere on the site. I'd recommend it anywhere in life. But particularly if you're going to work in CTOPs, you'll have to learn to control your impulse to add heat rather than light in discussions. Valereee (talk) 11:49, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Heat is the natural result of disagreement in a contentious area I'm afraid. The way to remove is to remove the disagreement, which is apparently very easy. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 11:53, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So the fact it's already at a simmer means what the heck, let's turn up the BTUs and see if we can get to a full boil? Starting to think you're trolling me, here, but I'll take that sincerely and explain:
The fact heat is a natural result is exactly why we don't need additional completely unnecessary heat in those places. If you want to believe it's because you're disagreeing with someone, that's up to you. But there are any number of people working at contentious articles who are regularly disagreeing profoundly with one another, sometimes for YEARS, and aren't ending up at AE. Valereee (talk) 12:06, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wh1pla5h99 is correct, though, Valereee. A large part of why those other editors are never brought to account for relatively minor snark like this is that they hold positions to which the active arbs are sympathetic. That's why M.Bitton was able to get away with their behaviour for years, and why several other editors I could name continue to get a free pass. Conversely, it seems like some arbs are just itching to bring the hammer down on editors like Wh1pla5h99. Riposte97 (talk) 23:47, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right to point out that some people, who arbs identify with, get different (special) treatment; that identication can happen in any number of ways. Some of that is human nature, some of it particular to Wikipedia and its ArbCom. This is a place Wikipedia has a chance to do better. But I have to tell you, my encounter with W1pp left a memorably unpleasant taste in my mouth in an area that had nothing to do with any content. I thought I was interacting with a newer editor seeking to learn more about the WMF after disliking an action the foundation had taken. Instead I had involuntarily become involved with a "debate me bro", demanding answers from me and holding me responsible for the budget of the foundation. When a day or two later I came to his talk page and saw the way he responded to people on this talk page, I realized that my unpleasant experience wasn't an anomaly. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:47, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you felt that way; I admit I assumed you were associated with WMF in some way given your apparent confidence that they are underfunded. Perhaps if you don't actually know what they are spending money on you should not say things like I think the WMF does need donations... the WMF's objective needs are greater and it's doing a better job of spending the money... I am troubled by the decreased number of donors in last year's fundraising drive both from a financial standpoint and because of what it means for our readership. I do think it is fair to probe into where 200ドル million a year could possibly be going, but I guess we should take it on faith that they need all of that and more, for all of their important projects and whatnot. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 11:04, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah if you had started from "I think the foundation wastes lots of money and Barkeep is wrong for thinking they should get donations. I think we can do better with 200 million." I'd not have cared or remembered it. Instead it seemed like you had genuine questions you wished to see answered and so I thought I'd offer help. Instead I got debate tactics with a side of facetousness for my efforts and that, in my experience, is unusual and based on this talk page not an experience unique to me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:24, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Tbh I think it’s natural for a collaborative project that editors who hold POVs perceived to be anti- a group to which some editors belong get harsher treatment than those supportive of a group. Editors that skew like that are good in the minority to keep people honest and balance against the inevitable advocacy, but it still needs to be a welcoming environment. Balance of POVs in a topic area is something that has a huge affect on article quality and should probably be taken into consideration re sanctions. But Wh1 got sanctioned so quickly because he seeked out the most controversial topics on highly-attended articles and contributed nothing but digs and insults Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 10:03, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it isn’t a coincidence that the POVs that predominate tend to align with those in BESTSOURCES such as scholarship, people complain about Wikipedia's bias, but really it mostly reflects the bias in the knowledge economy. Which is why I don’t really get what people like Larry think they’re doing, our model works, such efforts would be better placed upstream Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 10:17, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Of course our POV dominates (in a purportedly neutral encyclopedia), it is dominant after all! Don't insult people by suggesting Wikipedia should not have a POV. But I suppose this too is an insult, and presumably now I will also be removed from my own talk page. Later. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 10:40, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to opine that this discussion is still a discussion of the tban, which is still in place. The points being made are completely valid, but it is starting to become tangential to the tban, so Wh1, I actually would recommend that you pivot to discussing only the block until after you've successfully appealed. I'd like to try to help. I'm going to open a section where we can discuss the block and a possible appeal. Valereee (talk) 11:43, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily.
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes"). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
@Wh1pla5h99 Several editors on both sides of disputes in which you've engaged have warned you; administrators have warned you and imposed topic bans for this exact behavior. Accusing others of being tendentious is a violation of WP:AGF.
There are obvious voices on this project that will have their way no matter what; if my fault is going after those people a little too harshly rather than allowing them to continue that behaviour, then it is what it is. I'll move on to other, more productive things now. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron I looked at this and ended up confused. This indefinite ban was imposed for incivility American politics topic area after being topic-banned in IPA for a violation that occurred in American politics topic. I don't oppose this administrative decision, but is it possible to make it clearer in the log that the topic-ban was not in this topic (or, if we're already at it, maybe change the topic ban to the topic in which the violation that caused it has occurred)? NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@NorthernWinds: Wh1pla5h99 wasn't blocked for topic-ban violations; they were blocked because when a user continues the same behavior they were topic banned for in areas outside of their topic ban, it becomes clear that the topic ban was insufficient to curtail the behavior. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:39, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldronwasn't blocked for topic-ban violations This is not entirely clear from the blocking log. Also I don't understand why the topic ban wasn't imposed in American politics in the first place, given that the continued incivility happened there. I'm fine with a topic-ban in IPA (see my comment in the related AE thread) but I think that the justification given in this particular case does not make much sense and that it would make much more sense to impose a topic ban in American politics for the given evidence NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 16:48, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Their behavior also continued in PIA after the warning, so I think a topic ban from there was an appropriate choice. However, it didn't stop the same behavior from occurring in the American politics topic area or outside of CTOPs, so another topic ban would just be playing whack-a-mole. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:57, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As stated previously I don't oppose a topic ban. Is it possible to perhaps remove and re-add it based on evidence in that topic area? It'd avoid confusion. Also making it clearer in the logs that the violations did not occur in topics in which he was topic-banned can also help NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Wh1pla5h99 I'm really sad to see you blocked. You had great arguments and contributions, and the only fault I found with your editing was what you ended up being blocked for.
To reference your earlier comment: There are obvious voices on this project that will have their way no matter what; if my fault is going after those people a little too harshly rather than allowing them to continue that behaviour, then it is what it is. I think people will respect you and your opinion and viewpoint more if you maintain civility. Wikipedia is not a real-time conversation; you can always look back at your comment and make sure it gets your point across in the most civil way. While it may appear that being harsh helps get your point across, it actually hurts your cause.
I agree that it would be best to take a break until you can appeal your block. And if you do so successfully, like other editors have said, I'd suggest you start editing more on non-CTOPs, and then, once you've had a few months of experience editing without writing for effect, come back to CTOPs very cautiously. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 16:49, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
[6] @ NPOVN Editorialising at Executive Order 14168. I was going to reply to them, but I see now that they are now blocked. Should we make a note on their comment at NPOVN, to avoid confusion? Cheers. DN (talk) 23:28, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So, I'm not sure how much investigating you've done on how various types of blocks are appealed. Do you want to discuss? Valereee (talk) 11:44, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll take a break for now. If I have the urge to contribute in the future on the articles side of things I may do so. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 12:27, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you do. I skimmed your contributions history, and those in non-CTOPs article space show only a handful of reverted edits, which is a good sign. I think if you spent some time working in non-CTOPs, you might discover the culture here is not what it feels like in CTOPs/at fraught policy discussions. Spending time in non-CTOPs article space also gives you time to learn; for 7 million articles we have 60 million back-of-house pages, so there's a ton to learn and a steep learning curve. And you might actually have fun and be very productive instead of feeling frustrated most of the time. Valereee (talk) 12:45, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Here is their own president saying the members of her organization "mainly consist of people who are academics, so scholarly experts, but our membership is also made up of people who come from different communities within the field of genocide prevention, education, and punishment... we also have members from survivor communities": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6Ful1OaALk&t=44sWh1pla5h99 (talk) 13:28, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate this information and I will look at it later. You should be allowed to email me, right? In the future, feel free to do that... Slava570 (talk) 14:00, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wh1p if you want to reply to something there I will be happy to copy it over (and I am guessing I wouldn't be the only one). Barkeep49 (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
