Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia from SqueakBox! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and becoming a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome, SqueakBox 19:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Terbinium. Since you had some involvement with the Terbinium redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Arms Jones (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Gulf of Mexico for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See the talk page guidelines for more information. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell if you're trying to be serious or not, but that's entirely inappropriate behavior on that talkpage. We don't take orders from any political leader, be they named Xi, Putin, or Trump. Acroterion (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What an odd request. I have not been using talk pages for general discussion. I use talk pages to discuss how articles can be improved in specific ways.

With regards to the “Gulf of Mexico” talk page, I am merely advocating we acknowledge the name is no longer accurate, and skip all of the bickering to swiftly arrive at the inevitable renaming. That is not general discussion, but entirely specific to the matter of improving the article in a specific way.

Let's keep our discussion on this matter public, on the talk page. Bryan (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked a question at that page. I think we need an answer. Valereee (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm writing it, but I'm frankly aghast that this jerk @Acroterion is on such a power-trip that he thinks it's okay for him to delete other people's comments. Bryan (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a power trip. It's an attempt by an admin moderating a discussion to keep that discussion from turning into a forum. I understand that for someone new to Wikipedia that may be unfamiliar. But what I've been saying -- that this shouldn't be political -- is exactly what Acroterion is trying to prevent. Valereee (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not new to Wikipedia, but I certainly have never gotten involved enough to realize there are admins. Do admins get paid, and if not they're clearly power-tripping. There's no other incentive.

I'm writing a public response to you on the “talk page”, which (believe it or not) is a page for talk. I hope nobody will ever delete anyone else's comment again. Bryan (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "incentive" is to keep talkpage discussions within reasonable bounds, so that one editor does not overwhelm productive discussion with political advocacy or unactionable demands. And stop with the name-calling. If you've been around since 2014, you should know all that. Warnings for disruptive conduct belong on the talkpage of the editor concerned. And you should read the contentious topics notice below; you are quickly moving into conduct that may draw editing restrictions. Acroterion (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you threatening me? And you want me to believe you're not power-tripping? Bryan (talk) 19:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a threat. It's a warning. Valereee (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shall I kiss your hand, or is it more appropriate for me to get down on my hands and knees and kiss your feet? Bryan (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm warning you, which I'm obligated to do, for both personal attacks, and talkpage disruption. That's what administrators do. If you want to complain, you're free to go to WP:ANI, but it may not turn out the way you expect. Acroterion (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I barely have enough time and energy just to engage in this brief spat. I don't see how it's possible for anyone to have enough time to be an administrator. You're not obligated to do anything. Try powering down your laptop and go outside for a change. All of this nonsense is the exact waste of time I aimed to prevent. Bryan (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may advocate for alterations, within the boundaries of relevant Wikipedia policy. Talkpages are not fora for political advocacy of the "Leader X says so, so WP must comply," and political advocacy is not appropriate anywhere on WIkipedia. Talkpage discussions are for focused discussion, based on reliable sourcing, not for advocacy or Acroterion (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, let's keep all of our talk on the topic publicly visible on the topic's talk page. Do not delete my comments, or anyone else's. That's beyond rude; it's maniacal. Bryan (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Everything in any page's history is still publicly visible. The only exceptions are things that are revision-deleted or oversighted, which this wasn't. Valereee (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Technically the truth, but in practice nobody ever looks there except to fix vandalism. Deleting someone else's comment, btw, is vandalism. Bryan (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a very specific definition of WP:vandalism. Valereee (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just like Wikipedia has a very specific definition of the Gulf of Mexico? Deleting another person's comment is literal vandalism, according to any dictionary other than Wikipedia's obscure rulebook. (How do you even find those hidden documents? Are you aware that almost nobody knows about them? Who wastes time writing that stuff?)

In practice, whether or not y'all realize it, Wikipedia is a free-for-all which happens to harbor disproportionate influence over popular culture and discourse. That means we all have a duty to steer the ship. This whole ridiculous waste of time is just me saying “let's steer the ship according to the captain's command,” and you admins saying “oh no, let's get legalistic and ignore reality.”

@Acroterion tagging you for completeness. Bryan (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This [1] is an inappropriate comment on any talkpage, and is liable to be removed by any editor as forum-style advocacy. See WP:FORUM. Acroterion (talk) 19:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Acroterion (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BryanKaplan, I saw your earlier comment "I don't see how it's possible for anyone to have enough time to be an administrator." Just wanted to reach out as an administrator. There are people who care about consistency and rules, making sure that Wikipedia is presented in a way that avoids bias or conflict. Your comments on the Gulf of Mexico talk page are unproductive toward those goals. I've been an administrator for a long time, and usually try to avoid contentious topics. Unless you care a lot about other waterways' naming conventions, then I suggest you keep your comments toward improving the article, and less about politics. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Disruptive editing.

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 ~~~~}}.  Valereee (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to any other admin lifting this block if they think they've gotten through. Valereee (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at WP:XRV. (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Gulf of Mexico and Talk:Gulf of Mexico) for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think 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 ~~~~}}.  Valereee (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're currently blocked from just two pages, but be aware that if this "America first" nonsense continues, I will reblock you sitewide. This is an international encyclopedia. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2025 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

This user is a dedicated editor and should be allowed continued access to ALL pages now that everyone has cooled down. Krucial Khristian Krew (talk) 10:01, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Third party appeals are not considered. Cabayi (talk) 10:29, 1 February 2025 (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.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Continuing forum-like posts, WP:IDHT, POV-pushing, and being a timesink. Valeree's initial inclination to block indef was correct. Because disruption is occurring on talk page, talk page access removed..

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then contact the Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System.  Floquenbeam (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]