[Number 57] I've come across an editor who does very little except add commas in sentences like "In 2006, so-and-so did X". Unless this is an ENGVAR thing I'm not aware of, the sentences don't need a comma (and some style guides expressly advise against using it in these cases). If it's not an ENGVAR thing, I was just wondering was there any kind of policy to stop editors making small changes like this based on their personal preference. Cheers, Number 57 20:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

[SM] It's not an ENGVAR matter, it's a formal/academic style versus news style matter. You'll find that news publishers in the US and UK regularly drop the comma after short introductory phrases, because their primary concern is squeezing text to save space, while other publishers do that much less often (less often the more formal the publication is, and few things are more formal than an encyclopedia, which is an academic book by nature even if published online as a wiki). The few style guides that literally advise against such commas (rather than stating that they're optional) are news style guides, with very few exceptions. WP is not written in news style as a matter of policy. (It's part of what keeps us reading like an encyclopedia at all instead of dismal blog with too many cooks in the kitchen.)— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

[Number 57] Given that I was referring to the University of Oxford style guide (p12), the claim that it's "a formal/academic style versus news-style matter" doesn't seem to be true. I'll assume it's a personal preference thing then. Number 57 10:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

[SM] Nope. This has been discussed before multiple times, too. The "University of Oxford Style Guide" is not the Oxford Guide to Style, AKA Oxford Style Manual, formerly Hart's Rules, and now New Hart's Rules in current editions – the work intended as a guide book for general publishing, a British equivalent of The Chicago Manual of Style. The "UOSG" is an internal memo for, and only for: "writing and formatting documents written by staff on behalf of the University (or one of its constituent departments etc). It is part of the University’s branding toolkit". Like all university and corporate house style sheets, it is written by the marketing department, using the marketing register and style of English, which is derived almost entirely from news style (plus extra bombast – note the overcapitalization). It is not a reliable source for anything to do with English in a formal/academic/encyclopedic register.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

[RM] [...] I see you've later come in claiming that the University of Oxford Style Guide represents news style rather than academic style – a dubious assertion on the face of it. And despite your implying that the "real", "academic" Oxford style favors your viewpoint, I've now discovered the "Oxford University Press / Academic Division / Guide for authors and editors / Oxford Paperback Reference" at http://www.oxfordreference.com/fileasset/files/QuickReference_AuthorGuidelines.pdf, which states quite explicitly: "Avoid the use of a comma after an introductory adverb, adverbial phrase, or subordinate clause, unless the sentence will be hard to parse without it: In 2000 the hospital took part in a trial involving alternative therapy for babies." [...] –Roy McCoy (talk) 05:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

[SM] I don't have time to cover every point of this right now (and much of it's handwaving or rehash of material we've already covered, like the fact that Oxford's in-house "marketing about the university" stylesheet is irrelevant to encyclopedia writing and has no connection to Oxford U. Press style). [...]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

[RM] [...] The document concerned is in fact a publication of the Oxford University Press itself, not simply of some branch of the university. It certainly does have a most intimate connection to OUP style, having been prepared "to help you to deliver the text of your work to Oxford University Press in a form that will ensure its smooth passage through the publication process." [...] –Roy McCoy (talk) 04:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

[SM] Let's take a vote: Who else here can't tell the difference between the style guides, written by language authorities like managing editors of the OED, etc., that Oxford University Press publishes for general usage and (in summary form for the journals it publishes), on the one hand; and one the other, the in-house stylesheet, written by marketing functionaries, for how Oxford U. employees should write about Oxford U.? [...]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

[RM] Are you blind? http://www.oxfordreference.com/fileasset/files/QuickReference_AuthorGuidelines.pdf "TO HELP YOU TO DELIVER THE TEXT OF YOUR WORK TO OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS IN A FORM THAT WILL ENSURE ITS SMOOTH PASSAGE THROUGH THE PUBLICATION PROCESS." I don't know which Oxford publication you keep referring to, but it isn't the one I found and presented, which is OUP and has nothing to do with whatever you're talking about. [...] –Roy McCoy (talk) 07:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

[RM] It has been maintained that I cited an inappropriate Oxford source, the University of Oxford style guide, though I did not. In fact this purportedly inappropriate style guide is actually excellent and multipurpose, as anyone examining it can see. But I cited a completely different OUP publication, the OUP Academic Division's Guide for authors and editors, though this has yet be acknowledged. [...] –Roy McCoy (talk) 06:42, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

[SM] Already addressed this [8]; you're just proving my point for me, trying to rely on an internal memo of a publisher as if it is one of their public-facing works. It isn't.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

[SM] McCoy's own source list keeps mistaking such sources (e.g. Oxford internal marketing stuff) for academic ones anyway, or citing unreliable blogs, or turning to sources like Britannica which simply do things differently from WP in many ways and don't affect how WP writes. [...]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

[RM] All of these repeated criticisms ["I don't have time", "Let's take a vote", "McCoy's own source list"] follow my having clarified on May 1 that I was not talking about the University of Oxford style guide previously referred to by Number 57, but rather the OUP Academic Division's Guide for authors and editors, which you seem to have failed to look at despite its significance to the discussion and my calling attention to your error in regard to it several times. [...] So I'm asking you to (1) finally look at the OUP authors' and editors' guide, commenting if you feel like it but at least acknowledging that it isn't what you've been saying it is; and (2) respond to the question of whether or not you think a consensus on the current comma issue exists. Thank you. –Roy McCoy (talk) 04:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

[RM] Nothing obliges you to respond to everything I say, and it would be better if you didn't if you're going to keep repeating deprecatory falsehoods such as the one about the Oxford style manual. But you've been requested to reply briefly to two reasonable and pertinent requests: So I'm asking you to (1) finally look at the OUP authors' and editors' guide, commenting if you feel like it but at least acknowledging that it isn't what you've been saying it is; and (2) respond to the question of whether or not you think a consensus on the current comma issue exists. Thank you. Please do so. The guide is, again, Guide for authors and editors rather than University of Oxford style guide. Thank you. –Roy McCoy (talk) 13:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

[SM] The OUP guide you're now relying on is primarily for journals. It is a tiny house style guide for one particular publisher. It does not magically trump the enormous style guides produced for general public use that also happen to come from the same academic publishing enterprise. You seem unaware that OUP publishes even for general public use multiple style guides that contradict each other in many way (e.g. Garner's Modern English Usage, Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage, New Hart's Rules, New Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors, and various others besides. There is no such thing as one monolithic, unwavering style that "represents" OUP. They use one variant set of rules for their journals and I think it may also be applied to some of their non-fiction book publishing. They issue several sets of rules for much broader writing and publishing. Internally they have a completely different, marketing-based one for styling Oxford U.-related public messaging, and so on and so forth. There is no way around this problem. WP just couldn't give a damn about their internal house styles, of either kind. They are primary sources, for a specific extremely narrow internal context, have nothing to do with encyclopedic writing, and have not been used in any way whatsoever as a basis for WP's MoS, nor would they be. What matters for our purposes are their publications that other publishers rely on (i.e., that are reputable, reliable sources): New Hart's, Garner's, Fowler's, and (to the extent a simpler usage dictionary is helpful) NODWE. Oxford's internal marketing guide is no more pertinent than that of Sony or the Minnesota Attorney General's Office. Oxford's house style for journals is not more pertinent that that of any other journal publisher on the planet. Neither of those house-style works are world-trusted sources on how to write English; they are nothing but internal documents telling specific individual working with Oxford what to do with documents emanating from or being submitted to the entity. They are business relationship matters, a form of memo or internal policy; they are not authoritative sources on English usage norms or best practices. I.e., they are directly equivalent to our own MoS and its relation to the wider world: MoS is not a general "how to write" guide for the public; it is only applicable to WP itself. I'm going to ignore the rest of this, since it's even more rehashy that this bit is.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

[RM] Whether consciously or unconsciously, you seem to be missing the point. It should still be possible to explain the matter to you, though this may require an effort at understanding on your part. You write about the "OUP guide [I'm] now relying on" as if I had changed horses, but this only perpetuates your previous repeated assertion that I ever cited the other one in the first place (not, again, that there's anything necessarily wrong with that one, or that it actually presents a distinct and less appropriate Oxford style). So rather than correcting your previous derogatory misstatements, you've added a new one. I did invite you to comment on the authors' and editors' guide and you were welcome to do so, but you have presented your commentary instead of rather than in addition to the requested acknowledgement that I cited the authors and editors guide (which is for dictionaries rather than journals – you can't have looked at it very closely) and not the other one. It may seem like a minor point and perhaps it is, but since you repeated the false statement several times and in so doing imputed stupidity to me ("Let's take a vote: Who else here can't tell the difference [...] "), I have to insist that you acknowledge the error. [...] –Roy McCoy (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

[SM] Oxford produces lots and lots of in-house style sheets, for various projects and parties. WE DON'T CARE. They are internal memoranda. They are not reliable sources advising the world how to write; they're internal policy documents for how to write about Oxford U. in marketing materials, how to style their online resources for students, how to format papers for Oxford journal submissions, how to write their dictionaries if you're on their dictionary stuff, what they expect for book manuscripts, etc., etc., etc. They are not what the world turns to for "How should I write in English?" advice. They are not what MoS is based on. They will never be what MoS is based on, any more than our copyright policy is based on that of Uni. Frakfurt, or our civility policy is based on the human resources manual at Microsoft. FFS. How can it possibly be this hard to get this point across? I've covered this in detail in user talk already, anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

[RM] Would you please now retract your derogatory misstatements regarding my purportedly having unintelligently cited an Oxford style guide that I did not cite. —Roy McCoy (talk) 06:09, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

*****

McCandlish talk page

[RM] I note at the top of your page here: "I'll probably see that I've erred, and will at least acknowledge that you've raised an objection." Please acknowledge not that I've raised an objection — which is already obvious — but that you in fact made the mistake you did. I'm not asking for an apology (though an apology would be in order), but simply a retraction of your presumably unintentional repeated misstatement. [...] please be informed that your neglecting to correct your misstatements or answer my question is unsettling me, and if you're sincere about not wanting to offend or engender hard feelings, I hope you will act promptly to relieve me on this. It would also avoid further disputation on the matter, on the page or elsewhere. If you still don't understand what it was you repeatedly said that was untrue and to which I am objecting, then please let me know and I will again try to explain it to you. It's already there on the page, though. Thanks. –Roy McCoy (talk) 03:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

[SM] I stopped trying to plow through your repetitive WP:BLUDGEON posts days ago (I just respond to whatever point I first discern, and move on). So I'm not sure which thing(s) you're on about. If I run across them and they seem to need a response I'll make one. It's not a matter of being angry with you or anything like that; this simply has not been a productive expenditure of anyone's time. It's like two people in two different counties arguing with tree stumps and mistaking it for a conversation with each other. Given what I last responded to, I think it must have something to do with sources you like. I'm don't think it makes any difference at this point. What SPS/UGC blogs say doesn't matter. What news-style and marking sources say doesn't matter (regardless whose they are, even Oxfords's). What a one-publisher internal stylesheet says doesn't matter (even Oxford's). That when you try hard you can find some non-news sources that agree with you doesn't even matter when they are house-style sheets, and nothing like the public-facing style guides that WP and the rest of the world treat as reliable sources on English usage. Those almost unanimously treat such commas as optional, and recommend including them any time ambiguity or confusion could result. On WP that is effectively 100% of the time, because we have no control from moment to moment over what the text says. "This is not ambiguous because it's short and the rest of the sentence cannot be read with any other interpretation" is only true right this second and may be false on both points one second from now, or next week, or in August. This "someone at Oxford [in a non-relevant role] said ..." stuff is the same issue as "notability doesn't rub off"; reliability doesn't either. Internal documentation for a narrow one-publisher use ("how to write about Oxford U.", "how to submit something for publication by Oxford U.") are not RS publications on English usage, they're just primary sources for what some of Oxford's internal policies are. If they also have an internal policy that people may not leave open packages of food in the staff refrigerator over the weekend, this is not a reliable source that, in the wider world, leaving open packages of food in a refrigerator over the weekend is a problem. You've been confusing publication and publisher: not everything on paper or e-paper that came from some sub-entity of Oxford University is of equal reliability, relevance, or applicability in every context. [...] — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

[RM] There was no occasion for this. I didn't request further commentary from you in the first place – "commenting if you feel like it", I said, and this was only in relation to your finally having a look at the guide I had actually cited. I certainly didn't even suggest a further commentary now. [...] –Roy McCoy (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

[RM] I just now thought that it might not have been noticed – or perhaps it was later forgotten – that the initial message about the other Oxford style guide came from Number 57 and not from me. Could this explain the error? –Roy McCoy (talk) 04:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

[SM] [...] there is no admin anywhere on WP who is going to force me to answer you in a way that makes you happy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

[RM] I would have been very happy for our dispute to have been resolved prior to now, and I think I made this clear on your talk page before. You were correct about 3O's being for matters involving article content rather than user conduct; the links I was led through before didn't clarify this, but I now see through the previously unseen WP:DRR page linked to at the top of the MoS talk page that the appropriate place is WP:ANI. I have prepared a written complaint regarding your behavior and will most probably present it there unless the matter is resolved otherwise. In this regard, by the way, I don't know what happened to the "If we have a dispute, usually it's something we can easily hash out and move past with no hard feelings" text that I noted at the top of your talk page before. In any event I would prefer to settle the dispute without going to ANI, so I hope you will agree to discuss the problem here and now rather than there and later. This is the recommended and preferred way to handle such a problem, as I'm sure you are aware. Thank you. –Roy McCoy (talk) 03:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[SM] Knockya self out. You should probably familiarize yourself with WP:BOOMERANG first, since that's the likely result. "[U]sually it's something we can easily hash out and move past" has the word usually in it for a reason. It doesn't work when one side of the discussion is tendentiously pursuing some kind of "personal honor" WP:GREATWRONGS thing, and engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. It's already been made clear at WT:MOS that others are damned tired of the discussion. Here, as there, it has turned circular, so there is no point in going over it any further. The substantive matter isn't something either of us our changing our minds about, and is a moot point because MoS is not going to change without clear consensus to do so. WP:Drop the stick. Your attempts to arm-twist and browbeat me in to giving you "satisfaction" are bordering on WP:HARASS at this point, as ANI will make clear to you if you attempt such WP:DRAMA, especially since you keep posting this shit to my talk page after being asked not to. When I said "Please don't respond here further unless it has something productive to do with encyclopedia work", I actually and obviously meant it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*****

Per the discussion at Special:Permalink/898254684#SMcCandlish, you are banned from interacting with SMcCandlish for six months, subject to the usual exceptions. If you wish to appeal this sanction, please see the instructions at WP:AC/DS#sanctions.appeals. GoldenRing (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Roy, how are you. The software gave me a ping that you were trying to message me, but I can't access that at the moment. Ask me here or on my talk page if that suits you, or wait until I wade through my inbox. I like your writing style, I think I mentioned that, and believe I would enjoy reading your content (I'm interested in everything, except Finland and opera). cygnis insignis 17:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine, cygnis, thanks. There's no rush on the message; it's in your mail. –Roy McCoy (talk) 18:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, you would of course say now if it was about Finnish operas, being interested in everything else takes up a lot of my time. cygnis insignis 18:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

​Actually I'm negative about Finland at present, as my Finnish former boss will give me a recommendation for anywhere other than the outfit to which I've applied for a job, this because he doesn't like some of its people and refuses to have anything to do with them. And I've never liked opera in other languages, though yes Porgy and Bess and classic Broadway musicals (in English). But I have nothing else to say about either Finland or opera, so you needn't fear at least on that account. –Roy McCoy (talk) 18:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should say "claims" to be from Finland, I'm yet to be convinced it exists. Apparently it was invented to settle a fishing rights dispute after the second europeon war, or patching up some gap in the globalist maps to stop the truth about the flatness of our plane of existence from getting out. You should ask him about that, let him know you have put a question mark over his resume. cygnis insignis 19:07, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

​He's retired, so that doesn't matter. (I'm retired too, but want the job for health-insurance reasons.) Finland, what's that? –Roy McCoy (talk) 19:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, insurance, that immediately make me presume you are in the US. Is that unfair, even if it happens to be the case? Best wishes for the job hunt. moving sideways might give an opportunity by offering your skills to something outside your field. cygnis insignis 19:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

​It's not unfair, and your guess was correct. I'm not in the US at the moment, but I'm still subject to it since I was born there and one of my two passports is US American. Bye, catch you later. –Roy McCoy (talk) 00:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Roy McCoy. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by PATH SLOPU 13:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC). (You can at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.[reply]

Hi Roy McCoy! You created a thread called "The page has been restored." at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please . Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: you recent comments directed at me in the subject thread.

Those comments appear to me to fall at least close to argumentum ad hominem and personalise the arguement. Ad hominem "is a fallacious argumentative strategy" but a double-whammy wrt WP:NPA. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What comments? You said I was less than equivocal, and I said the prize for equivocality went to you. That makes us equal on that score, though you actually deserved the comment more, having been totally equivocal in your assertion that I was less than equivocal – as evidenced by your later changing "equivocal" to its opposite. And you suggest here that you don't know what a personal attack actually is, so I suggest you take another, and better, look at WP:WIAPA. Did I use abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on your race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, religious or political beliefs, disabilities, ethnicity, nationality, or anything of the sort? No. Did I use your affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views? No. Did I link to any external attacks, harassment, or other material? No. Did I compare you to Nazis, communists, terrorists, dictators, or other infamous persons? No. Did I make accusations about your personal behavior that lacked evidence? No. (I may have implied you were a less than competent speller, but there was no lack of evidence for that.) And finally, did I in any way threaten you? No. So I'm sorry, but I'm afraid you don't even have a single-whammy here. If I were to have personalized anything, it would have been an argument, not an "arguement", and I've hardly neglected the topic at hand. –Roy McCoy (talk) 01:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good space add. You might also want to correct "you recent comments" here and "perenthetic" on the MoS talk page, where I'm now continuing the discussion of the topic. –Roy McCoy (talk) 03:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you really intend this apology in such a backhanded way? I did not refer to you as less than equivocal (or unequivocal). It refers to "the question mark in my response". Cinderella157 (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

​It wasn't an apology. Like most people, when I apologize I say "I'm sorry" or "I apologize", not "excuse me". I think I've responded adequately on your "apposition?" statement, and I'm not responsible for your lack of clarity there or elsewhere. For one thing this sentence, aside from being incomprehensible generally, was incorrectly punctuated. If you're going to be lecturing people on restrictive vs. nonrestrictive phrases, you should understand the matter yourself and act accordingly. To say "that is less than (un)equivocal", without a comma, incorrectly implies – as you should well know – that there is more than one question mark. There are numerous question marks in regard to your prose, your inventing a grammatical category and then claiming it requires commas and so forth, but that isn't what you intended to say here. –Roy McCoy (talk) 00:10, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

• Roy, I haven't been following the comma discussions so I don't know who's done what to whom or who's at fault or indeed that anyone's at fault. I think you have a lot to offer the project, but you do have a way of digging in, as many people at MOS do -- but right now you're the one at ANI, and not long ago it was AE, and you don't want to make those places a habit. So please, take MOS off your watchlist and bury yourself in article editing in some area that interests you. EEng 03:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @EEng:This seems pretty typical of what I've observed around here lately: no investigation and yet you don't hesitate to make a judgment and tell me what to do. Why don't you try actually reading the ANI complaint rather than delivering pronouncements based on assumptions in regard to it. Also, I left a message recently on your talk page (which takes a long time to load on my browser) and would appreciate a reply. Thank you. –Roy McCoy (talk) 04:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I replied on my talk page yesterday. As for the ANI complaint, it will likely go nowhere but that doesn't change the overall pattern that you're rubbing people the wrong way. I've been around the block a few times so I know what I'm seeing, and I'm trying to help you. EEng 04:19, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  ​Thanks, but don't you think some of them have been rubbing me the wrong way? And don't you think some friction is natural when people have strongly differing opinions? Actually I don't think we've been getting along so badly lately, and at the moment I'm feeling rather appreciative that none of them ganged up on me at ANI as I halfway expected. In any event I don't see anyone else in the group actively defending customary punctuation, so unless the field is to be abandoned to invasive hypergrammarians of a particular fraternal (or sororal, or theiral) ilk, I think I have a place there. Which side of wikipunctuational history do you plan to be on? –Roy McCoy (talk) 04:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  ​P.S. I was scratching the top of your user page just now and noticed "Resources offered" with a link to http://hollisclassic.harvard.edu/. Ther's a link from there to the new catalog, but you might want to update the link to https://hollis.harvard.edu/primo-explore/search?vid=HVD2&sortby=rank&lang=en_US so that a click goes there directly. It looks like you're in Cambridge, then? I was looking forward to meeting Steven Pinker when I get back from Guatemala this Thursday (if he hasn't left for the summer, as he may well have), but if you're there I'll want to meet you as well (or instead of). –Roy McCoy (talk) 04:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I won't discuss Zamenhof because I agree with the 'Polish-Jewish' description. However, saying that he wasn't Polish by nationality is completely wrong. Firstly, because by the time he died a regency Kingdom of Poland was established and secondly a country's in-existence does not impact nationality/allegiance only citizenship. So it is best you will withhold such claims or opinions if you are unaware of the topic as you just suggested that Marie Curie, Chopin, Korzeniowski (Joseph Conrad), and others were all fullblooded Russians, Austrians or Germans. Regards. Oliszydlowski (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Oliszydlowski:That's an interesting point about Poland's existing at the time of Zamenhof's death, thanks. I think one would usually understand someone's nationality to be more determined by the point of his birth rather than his death, however, at least in the absence of clarification, further detail, or evidence of emigration. I'm not aware of having suggested anything about the figures you mentioned, though perhaps I did unintentionally. If Zamenhof was in some way Polish, good, as this accords correctness to "Polish-Jewish". Ĉu vi parolas Esperanton? –Roy McCoy (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for understanding. It is a very complicated part of our history. No, I do not speak Esperanto, however, I'd love to. :) Kind Regards. Oliszydlowski (talk) 16:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Oliszydlowski: Nu, ne permesu ke mi haltigu vin. Vi havas Interreton, kaj temas pri la plej facila kaj rapide lernebla lingvo en la mondo. Vidu ĉe Duolingo. –Roy McCoy (talk) 16:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Roy McCoy! You created a thread called The letter "m" in edit summaries at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please . Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on David Ray Griffin. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

​I suppose you're well paid as well, and I don't wish you a good day. With Wikipedia being as discredited as it is, the Griffin article supposably makes little or no difference. One can even thank you for contributing to the obviousness of the general fraud. –Roy McCoy (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

​Who's harassing whom, sir? –Roy McCoy (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm that strikes me as a not so intelligent question, and if you continue to make these weird allegations, you will be blocked for longer. For the record, I am not well paid, though I wish the CIA would do me the courtesy of sending regular checks. Drmies (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You surely deserve them, sir. –Roy McCoy (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering how you are able to edit locked pages. I noticed that you did so on the proud boys page. There seem to be some mistakes on that page. Or at the very least inconsistencies. The leader is Cuban American and yet it says that they are white supremacists? How can both be true? One of their most prominent leaders is Samoan, also not white, perhaps he is a supremacist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pvanrhee (talk • contribs) 21:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not locked, it's just "semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it". I would guess, then, that you're not an autoconfirmed user if you can't edit it. This was the first thing I'd read about the Proud Boys other than seeing them mentioned a couple of times, so I don't really know anything about them. I didn't even read the whole WP article. –Roy McCoy (talk) 21:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Pvanrhee (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As an associate of Griffin, you should not edit the article directly. You have already been advised of this, I think, but this is a reminder. Editing the article directly risks damage to his reputation by giving a perception of whitewashing. It also raises the possibility of you being blocked from editing or banned from the topic altogether. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy: It is not clear that I am an associate of Griffin to the extent of having an actual COI. As a matter of fact, now that I have just now checked a dictionary I am sure I do not. The definition of a conflict of interest is "a situation in which a person is in a position to derive personal benefit from actions or decisions made in their official capacity". I have no such benefit to gain, so common sense does not say this is a COI (WP:EXTERNALREL). When Anachronist identified me as having one she was assuming I was being paid, and I clarified that I was not. Prof. Griffin and I have never met, I have never spoken with him, and we share no organizational affiliation. I don't even agree with him on various aspects of 9/11. My few recent edits have been appropriate and unchallenged, and I doubt that you're complaining about any now – just that I'm editing at all, because you seem clearly out to keep Griffin denigrated, for whatever reason you are so doing. Saying that I might give a perception of whitewashing is just another insult, as there is nothing about Prof. Griffin to be whitewashed. That he has written about 9/11 truthfully – unlike the paid agents and corrupt journalists who haven't – is an honor and nothing to be ashamed of or embarrassed about in any way. Thank you, however, for admitting here that "conspiracy theorist" is not a neutral term but pejorative, as only something of a pejorative nature can be whitewashed. –Roy McCoy (talk) 01:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COI has nothing to do with being paid or personal benefit. I never connected your COI with being paid, I simply requested that you disclose whether you are being paid, because that was a point that needed clearing up. You have already disclosed your conflict of interest by stating on Talk:David Ray Griffin that you're "serving as Griffin's representative". You have an association, and that is a conflict of interest. Participating on the page in the capacity of his representative is a clear conflict of interest. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist: Okay, I asked you and I'll accept that as the verdict, though I remain unsure as to whether my relation with Prof. Griffin actually qualifies as a sufficiently close association (WP:PSCOI) for the COI restrictions to genuinely apply. I also have to doubt your assertion that "COI has nothing to do with being paid or personal benefit" with the dictionary definition being, again, "a situation in which a person is in a position to derive personal benefit from actions or decisions made in their official capacity". In any event, can this association, this non-profitable non-affiliation, be dissolved? Not, again, that I have any desire to edit-war on this article or any other, so I don't know how much of a practical difference an elimination of the purported COI would make. It might embolden me to again add a missing period or restore sense to something clearly meaningless. It's clear enough in any event that I simply respect Prof. Griffin and don't want to see him smeared with a pejorative label for which there is no apparent necessity and no valid argument. It hardly seems reasonable or fair to ban a sympathizer from editing, while freely permitting rabidly anti-truther ideologues whose motivation for insisting on the smear seems unclear and/or dubious. Thank you. –Roy McCoy (talk) 14:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The dictionary definition for COI is irrelevant. What matters is Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, which states right at the top that you shouldn't edit Wikipedia in the interests of your external relationships. There is no ambiguity about COI with a representative of a living person.

The editors with whom you have been debating have significantly more experience on Wikipedia, and their motivation isn't to promote ideology but to ensure that articles conform to policies and guidelines; all of the policies and guidelines, not just selected ones. Characterizing these editors as ideologues could be considered a personal attack. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist:

A considerable number of real-world actualities appear to be irrelevant to Wikipedia, unfortunately.

Thank you for your reply, but you didn't provide an answer to my question as to whether the relationship of representative may be dissolved or not. I almost came back to add that I didn't want it dissolved and at the moment I don't, as it is convenient for me not to edit the page under the present circumstances – this aside from the purported COI, which wouldn't exist if the representative relationship were dissolved – and to enjoy, as Prof. Griffin's representative, the explicit and at least theoretical accommodation of WP:BLPEDIT.

As for the word ideologue, I wasn't sure how to refer to the individuals concerned, and so having previously seen such people referred to as ideologues in several places, I looked the word up in my (possibly irrelevant) dictionary and found that it seemed to apply: "an adherent of an ideology, especially one who is uncompromising and dogmatic". Furthermore, when I looked the word up in Wiktionary, not only is it not tagged with "derogatory" as is conspiracy theorist, but it seems to have an equally applicable definition there also: "A person who advocates an ideology, especially as an official or preeminent advocate". I don't know how preeminent these people are (except for Philip Cross, concerning whom there can be no doubt in light of the avidly appreciated media attention he has exhibited a capability of attracting), but they do appear to have been accorded with officialdom. Their ideology consists of "the ideas and manner of thinking characteristic of a group, social class, or individual". I was thinking of going back, striking "ideologues" and replacing it with "editors who are uncompromising and dogmatic", but decided not to do so because the word is commonly used without censure and I should have the right to use it also – particularly on a talk page and when it may be justifiably viewed as appropriate. In my opinion these editors are clearly pushing an ideological POV, regardless of what they or you say otherwise. –Roy McCoy (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roy McCoy, we ideologues are not too keen on sealions, as it happens. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me. I never repeat a question when it's answered. –Roy McCoy (talk) 23:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roy McCoy, I can do without sealions. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: Then you can click on the blue star and I won't ping you. But please let me know if you prefer to discuss the matter despite your distaste, and I would be happy to do so. You might answer the question for Anachronist, since I suppose you know. Again, it's mostly curiosity. –Roy McCoy (talk) 23:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roy McCoy, suree, let me know how that works out for you. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let you know how what works out for me? I don't understand what you mean. If "sealioning" is repeating questions (like mine to Anachronist), it seems I'm being railroaded into this curious form of civil misconduct. –Roy McCoy (talk) 12:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were going to stop pinging me? Bye. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When adding links to material on external sites, as you did to Georgia Guidestones, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube or Sci-Hub, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you believe the linked site is not violating copyright with respect to the material, then you should do one of the following:

• If the linked site is the copyright holder, leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page;
• If a note on the linked site credibly claims permission to host the material, or a note on the copyright holder's site grants such permission, leave a note on the article Talk page with a link to where we can find that note;
• If you are the copyright holder or the external site administrator, adjust the linked site to indicate permission as above and leave a note on the article Talk page;

If the material is available on a different site that satisfies one of the above conditions, link to that site instead. Doug Weller talk 16:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: This raises some interesting questions. As you and anyone else can see, I didn't place this link but only updated it. Moreover, I haven't seen that the BitChute link is any more illegitimate than the unchallenged YouTube one was. Alex Jones is presumably aware that Endgame is up at BitChute and would have had it taken down if he didn't tacitly approve. I suppose I'll take a stab at contacting him and seeing if the BitChute copy can be legally authorized, or if there's some other site that satisfies one of the stated conditions. If not, what are the conditions under which the film can be cited? Would one have to buy a copy, or find it in a library, or what? –Roy McCoy (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: I have since noticed that the YouTube link wasn't dead but only flagged. If the film and the book exist as published and consultable sources, I wouldn't think they could be dismissed as non-RS as if they were from a non-RS periodical or website. On the other hand I'm not sure Endgame needs to be cited in the Georgia Guidestones article. In any event I still have the question about citing a film on DVD in a case like this, where an editor saw it on YouTube or wherever and it is thus known that it exists. A citation is presumably not going to be ruled out simply because someone became familiar with the source through an unauthorized copy. So what does it take to establish the legitimacy and accuracy of the original source? Does an editor actually have to hold the DVD (or book, or whatever) in his hands, or can he/she under any circumstances cite something secondhand? Thanks. –Roy McCoy (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the YouTube video also seems to be a copyright violation and should have been removed earlier. What you've done is probably ok although what the solution would be if challenged I'm not sure. You could ask at the Wikipedia:Help desk. That's about WP:Verify. But being able to verify that something has been reliably published is necessary but not sufficient for inclusion. WP:UNDUE is another issue. Doug Weller talk 16:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Thanks. Something I didn't say before was that any interpretation of the Guidestones necessarily has to be "conspiracy theory", since there is no party-line narrative and since conjecture must be involved owing to the inextricable mystery of the subject. Such conjecture must furthermore involve a conspiracy, since no individual could have produced the monument on his own; he would at least have needed several translators, for example.

But I only became involved with this article owing to the subject/verb disagreement I corrected and to my habit of provisionally following pages I've edited. Unlike the article about Griffin, where I remain offended by the mischaracterization, I'm not interested in remaining involved with the Guidestones one, particularly having registered my protest and restored mention of the film. I wrote to Infowars yesterday, so they're aware of the deletion and can presumably try to do something about it if they're so inclined. I doubt they will be, however. –Roy McCoy (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised you went ahead and did it without discussion. Pleases don't do that again. Thanks.--Doug Weller talk 19:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: It wasn't precisely without discussion. You may have missed something. As I have previously observed, there is no general consensus for "conspiracy theorist" in the article (I'll see about the sources – I already examined Barkun) and thus no evident reason for it to enjoy any ironclad status, particularly since it's incorrect from any genuinely rational point of view. I'll probably get around to dealing with this further on the talk page, though no one is paying me (I'm not one of those paid editors), I have other things to do, and I only stumbled more or less by chance into this particular arena. –Roy McCoy (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has accepted and opened the Flyer22 and WanderingWanda case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 30, which is when the evidence phase is scheduled to close. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Workshop, which closes January 13, 2020. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. To opt out of future mailings please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Guy Macon (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon: Including WanderingWanda? –Roy McCoy (talk) 01:49, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are no articles where where you have interacted with WanderingWanda[1] and WanderingWanda does not appear to have m,ade any recent edits in the area of pseudoscience,[2] so no. I suggest that you focus on your edits in the area of pseudoscience.[3] --Guy Macon (talk) 04:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon: Okay, I'll ask you instead. What's this about? What drew you into it? –Roy McCoy (talk) 05:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your edits at David Ray Griffin and Cathy O'Brien (conspiracy theorist) both of which I watch because they involve fringe theories. Now your turn; What does WanderingWanda have to do with fringe theories or pseudoscience? If I missed something then they might be a candidate for a Template:Ds/alert as well. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon: If there's a list of taboo topics, and I've had the audacity to tread on one or two of them and don't immediately cease at your admonition, or tailor my edits to the demands of the censorship (which I'm actually already doing in refraining from editing the Griffin page), then go ahead and block me. It would be funny if I got WanderingWanda slapped with an alert, as we've never had contact and the only things I know about her (or them, or it, or whatever he/she/it/they calls himself/herself/itself/themself) is that she's initiated a case with Flyer22 and that you don't want to have anything to do with it. I was just looking for an editor's name to use as a joke, and hers/his/its/theirs was immediately suggested by a post above yours. As for the general threat, the purpose of the talk pages as I understand it is to discuss the content of the articles. If everyone is obliged to toe the same party line in their regard, there would hardly seem to be much point in having the public talk pages at all. Moreover, the actual fringe theory in regard to 9/11 is the official fantasy, which if I'm not in error only a minority of the population believes despite the relentless propaganda in its favor. Wikipedia can denigrate and libel Professor Griffin all it wants in the hope of repressing the truth, but it's still not going to be able to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Can you honestly state that you think the NIST report is real science? –Roy McCoy (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 9/11 conspiracy theories
• 9/11 Truth movement
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories
• Important Notice

--Guy Macon (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon: I notice you didn't answer the question. Not that I'm repeating it. –Roy McCoy (talk) 14:49, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I most certainly did answer your question. Please don't confuse "didn't answer" with "answered but Roy McCoy is not willing to accept that answer."

The question:

"Can you honestly state that you think the NIST report is real science?"

My answer:

"9/11 conspiracy theories"

"9/11 Truth movement"

"Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories"

"Important Notice"

Your answer is on the pages I just linked to. As an editor who deals with pseudoscience a lot (please see WP:YWAB), if I thought that the NIST report wasn't real science I would have edited those pages to say so, with reliable sources to back up my changes.

From 9/11 conspiracy theories:

"The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the technology magazine Popular Mechanics have investigated and rejected the claims made by 9/11 conspiracy theorists.^[1][2][3] The 9/11 Commission and most of the civil engineering community accept that the impacts of jet aircraft at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires, not controlled demolition, led to the collapse of the Twin Towers,^[4][5] but some groups, including Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, disagree with the arguments made by NIST and Popular Mechanics.^[6][7]"

--Guy Macon (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon: I don't know why you didn't send ten links rather than only four, then. I agree with you that it wasn't necessary for you to answer yes or no to a yes-or-no question. –Roy McCoy (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you take heed from what people are telling you before you get a block.Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suggest you read wp:notaforum, article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not what you think of the article, not what other people think of the article, and not what off-wiki sites think of Wikipedia.Slatersteven (talk) 18:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: Thank you very much for this kind and sage advice. –Roy McCoy (talk) 19:04, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...even if couched in phrasing giving you plausible deniability that you were "joking", will get you blocked indefinitely if you do it again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:43, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: I didn't call anybody "it". Why were you on my page? –Roy McCoy (talk) 22:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Above, on 17 December, you said "..the only things I know about her (or them, or it, or whatever he/she/it/they calls himself/herself/itself/themself)...". I noticed Guy Macon had gone on break, and out of curiosity I looked at his recent contribs to see if there was a Wiki-related reason, and went down the rabbit hole of reading his recent discussions. I noticed the comment above. It's not clever. It is dehumanizing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: Thanks for explaining what you were doing on my page. Have fun. –Roy McCoy (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Doug Weller talk 17:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: I take it this means one isn't allowed to oppose the proposed move from Disputes surrounding the 2020 United States presidential election results to 2020 United States presidential election fraud conspiracy theory, or to assert that evidence of fraud exists when it does. –Roy McCoy (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea where you got that idea. We wouldn't have a move discussion if no one could oppose it. As for your comment about evidence of fraud, if you've got reliable sources of course you can present them. If you don't, you can't expect people to care. Doug Weller talk 17:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: I got the idea from my not having been involved with any article on politics other than the proposed Election 2020 dispute>conspiracy title change. If it wasn't that, why did I get the notice? What's the post-1932 politics? –Roy McCoy (talk) 13:39, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That article is covered by the sanctions. The alert describes what is covered. Doug Weller talk 13:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Do you mean that everyone appearing at that article receives this alert? –Roy McCoy (talk) 13:47, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone there is eligible for an alert, I have no idea how many have been given them or declared themselves aware (which I do). I'm not following the debate but saw it in your contributions.Any editor may give an alert, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Awareness and alerts which also explains how to declare your own awareness. Doug Weller talk 14:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Thank you for reminding me that editors can also place alerts, though I have no desire or plan to do so myself. Please excuse me for not phrasing my question properly. I was wondering if you had alerted anyone else in regard to this title change. –Roy McCoy (talk) 14:23, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roy McCoy, as I'm not following the discussion (see above) I wouldn't know. I give out a lot of alerts every day (it's easy using Twinkle). Doug Weller talk 14:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Neutrality^talk 19:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make unsubstantiated accusations of criminal activity such as fraud. Not even in talk space. Neutrality^talk 19:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, Neutrality, but who did I accuse of fraud? –Roy McCoy (talk) 23:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it is this edit, which repeated the false claim "the evidence of fraud is abundant". No, it is not. Accusations of voter fraud are indeed abundant, but they are false claims. Contradicting RS, especially about BLP-sensitive matters (even when you don't mention a specific wrongdoer) is generally not allowed as it is forbidden advocacy of fringe POV. Don't do it. Stay on the side of RS and you'll be fine. -- Valjean (talk) 18:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you continue to voice false assumptions that there is abundant voter fraud. Adding the word "purported" doesn't adequately disguise that you openly question the election results: "I don't like Trump either, but a large amount of purported evidence purportedly indicating a purportedly massive amount of electoral fraud is purported to exist, and it has not yet been objectively established, but only asserted, that these claims are invalid."

The claims have indeed been shown to be invalid and Trump's lawyers have lost over 50 cases. They ran around claiming they had evidence of fraud, but when it came time to appear in court, they didn't even claim fraud, but other irregularities. Their "evidence" was so weak they didn't even present it in court. One gets the feeling they were just doing it all as a show for Trump's supporters. In short, because RS do not question the election results, you shouldn't do it either. It is expected that Wikipedia's editors are on the side of RS. -- Valjean (talk) 18:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Valjean: Indeed it is! –Roy McCoy (talk) 01:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

—== A Joyous Yuletide to You! ==

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Roy McCoy, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, JACKINTHEBOX • TALK 16:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Warning -- You are in violation of Wikipedia's Three Revert Rule. Feoffer (talk) 05:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And your Hi-ho silver post wasn't either. Doug Weller talk 20:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was putting together a message to offer support for the battle you were fighting on the "Stop The Steal" article. While attempting to copy and paste some examples of illiteracy and outright lying by some of your opponents, my lengthy message was closed and disappeared, adding to the reason I was simply writing a message to thank you, rather than join as an editor. I don't have the patience to debate with those that feign confusion to cause irritating redundancy. I no longer have the energy to chase biased editors around with the truth, trying to force them to accept it, bit by excruciating bit. I thought encyclopedias were obligated to present facts and not allow people to define a movement that they obviously resent. The avoidance of facts in the "Stop The Steal" article reads like a CNN report, complete with confusing examples of 2nd grade composition like the following: "Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, is the accusers' obligation to prove guilt, no the accused to prove to be innocent. In other words, no matter how many accusations are about alleged voters' fraud is not, until is proven in a court, that we can certainly said it was." Really? How about some more "other words"? Except this time, please put them in an order that makes sense. Statements like "... falsely posits..." and "...without evidence..." are written in either complete ignorance or utter deceit, almost certainly the latter contrived to create the former. Most intelligent people from either side know that the Democrats are hiding the very evidence they demand to see by preventing inspection of voting machines and ballots that are designed to be inspected and verified. Painting it any other way makes one look foolish. Why would anybody fight so hard to avoid proving results? Out of curiosity, is a statement actually considered factual here if the author cites sources known to be biased and in the practice of avoiding facts? Anyways, thank you for fighting the good fight. Not the fight of the right, the fight for honesty and logic based in factual premises. I wish I could have been there to support you. I don't know how much fraud there was, I just think it would be nice to know before moving on to a President with ties to the CCP and a history of putting the American people last. The results could have been verified by now. The article is obviously controlled by people who want to strip the movement of legitimacy. May they be last in the breadlines of socialism if, God forbid, they ever get their way. RealLogicHasNoParty (talk) 01:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will add, talk pages are for discussing how to improve articles, not for telling us how crap we are. If you had made substantive and constructive points I would have bothered to read them, but you started out (in effect) saying you were not going to listen to any point you disagreed with, and that you were tired of bothering. Well, no one forced you to edit that article. If you cannot be bothered to convince others within the standards laid out in our policies it might be best to stop getting here.Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it will end if you get a block for being disruptive, so I suggest you both change your attitude and behavior and actually work within our policies and not push against them. Otherwise, you will lose the ability to fight for your POV (you also need to read wP:battle).Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll assume you're following my page, Slatersteven, so I won't have to ping you if we continue. The Wikipedia policies always seem to be fine and at least relatively well worked out. There's nothing wrong with relying primarily on reliable sources, for example. But when the purportedly reliable sources (PRS) aren't actually reliable, and when there are sources that are actually more reliable than the PRS but are nonetheless deprecated, this is messed up and the policy becomes not actually relying on reliable sources, but making the encyclopedia an echo chamber for corporate propaganda. I can be kicked off at any point, for not being there to build an encyclopedia, for being a "sealion", or simply because some administrator decides to apply a DS and so there. This doesn't bother me and I'm not going to be intimidated by threats. It's not that I don't have other things to do than wrangle with pseudonymous entities with hidden identities and agendas, or even that I can't edit if I get blocked. None of the miscellaneous articles on obscure musical topics that I generally copy-edit are protected, and nobody minds if I come in and anonymously clean them up a little. As for the more important political stuff, the deck is stacked (as I observed) and it's not going to hurt me not to be forever frustrated in losing battles.

I'll comment that although you support Wikipedia policies, you suggest that I be more compliant with them in order to maintain the ability to fight for my POV. But that's exactly what you're not supposed to do on Wikipedia, so here you're advising me not to conform to policy. I don't know that I have a POV (I ascribe to no political party or religion, for example), and it's actually Wikipedia that is constantly violating its own expressed policy by maintaining articles that are grossly POV. Whether or not that is the case, however, and irrespective of the policy, I have no desire to fight for any particular POV at all. That there was and remains massive fraud in the 2020 election is not a POV, but merely observance of facts covered up and lied about by the PRS. The fact that they're never even mentioned, let along properly reported on, proves that the coverage is grossly biased and thus so is Wikipedia also, basing itself strictly on these visibly biased sources.

I again apologize for having responded as negatively as I did to your invitation, OK lets take it to talk, if you think [the 9/11 narrative is] "official" rather than true. Yes, I think it's official rather than true. Why do you believe it's true (assuming you do)? What might you have said in defense of this position if a discussion had ensued on the article talk page? –Roy McCoy (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have your talk page on my watch list. If you think a source is not an RS you make a case at wp:rsn you do not just unilaterally reject it. There is nothing wrong with having a POV, it's how you go about it that is wrong. Article talk pages are for ONLY discussing how to improve the article, nothing else. Nor do s=conatsn assumptions of bad faith (which amount to violations of wp:npa) going to win anyone over. Wikipedia is built on wp:consensus, you win people over with the strength of your (policy-based) arguments. Not your rhetoric or the elegance of your language (or verbiosity) (read wp:NOTDUMB). As you say you are not paid to edit here, you do not have to edit here, and if you are not willing to edit according to our policies we are not going to miss you. You also need to read wp:nothere, right now you are well over that line in my opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I can ping you. Thanks for the tip on WP:RSN; I'll go get them to deprecate CNN and the New York Times immediately. What source did I unilaterally reject? –Roy McCoy (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell all of them, your whole argument seems based on we are biased.Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I'm submitting a report at WP:AE. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 14:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read wp:sock.Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit sorry that it resulted in an indefinite block, but also understand that you invited it. Indefinite blocks are not necessarily forever, they can be appealed and there's WP:STANDARDOFFER. Because of that and the possibility that you may be around again eventually, I will only comment on a few points: and that this won't bother anyone it is important to understand that the main issue was disruption by wasting a lot of volunteer editor resources via persistent advocacy to push WP in directions contradicting its purpose (thus ultimately unsuccessful). No longer be morally compromised by association with your ethically seedy and intellectually dishonest operation while that type of comment is routine on WP, it's unfortunate to see an editor who could edit constructively in certain topics suddenly seem to become radicalized (it's also a general problem in some societies at the moment). In fact, I wasn't even certain if the account was taken over. Whatever the case, maybe that'll pass. The other option was to avoid those topics to which you were particularly sensitive, the reason I believed a topic ban would help. Farewell for now, —PaleoNeonate – 19:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing. Per your request (basically), I have blocked your account indefinitely. As for your request that all of your contributions to the project be expunged somehow, even if that was a legitimate request (which it isn't), it's highly doubtful anyone would bother (what would even be their motivation?). In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.

El_C 18:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I read your reply at WP:AE and wanted to try to correct some misunderstandings you appear to have.

• I request, however, that you not block me in the manner proposed by PaleoNeonate, but rather obliterate, as much as possible, my entire association... When you edit Wikipedia, you'll notice there is an agreement next to the "save" button that reads, "By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license." There is no way to remove edits for this reason, except in very limited circumstances (WP:CRD, WP:OSPOL) which do not apply here.
• As I've also said in one place or another, I suppose I can still come in and correct commas and misspellings on unprotected pages anonymously if I feel like it.... This is expressly forbidden by our sockpuppetry policy. When a sanction is applied to your account, that sanction applies to you, the person behind the account, and it applies regardless of whether you are logged in to that account, another account, or edit anonymously. Any edits made in violation of your sanction, even typofixes, will be considered evasion of the sanction until and unless you successfully appeal.

Hope this helps. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roy McCoy, please stop emailing me. El_C 04:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since you didn't stop, it has been revoked. El_C 01:21, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]