Randykitty (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 84: | Line 84: | ||
[[User:Drmies]] and [[User:Randykitty]]: Before I was topic-banned, [[User:Bishonen]] redacted someone's comment about Hillary on Donald Trump's [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump#Reactions.3B_description_as_far_right_and_more talkpage], and I called them out on it. How does that make them uninvolved? How is the topic ban not in retaliation? Note that I am not saying that it is, just wondering, given the curious context. Thank you.[[User:Zigzig20s|Zigzig20s]] ([[User talk:Zigzig20s#top|talk]]) 13:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC) |
[[User:Drmies]] and [[User:Randykitty]]: Before I was topic-banned, [[User:Bishonen]] redacted someone's comment about Hillary on Donald Trump's [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump#Reactions.3B_description_as_far_right_and_more talkpage], and I called them out on it. How does that make them uninvolved? How is the topic ban not in retaliation? Note that I am not saying that it is, just wondering, given the curious context. Thank you.[[User:Zigzig20s|Zigzig20s]] ([[User talk:Zigzig20s#top|talk]]) 13:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC) |
||
*I looked at the edit on the Trump talk page and while I in general agree with you in what you write in that section, I also think that Bishonen was correct in redacting that particular edit (personally, I'd probably revdel'ed it. Admins have to deal with issues like this all the time and I don't think that the fact that you disagreed with redacting the comment makes {{u|Bishonen}} involved regarding you. I have not looked at the topic ban issue itself as I have no time (nor, frankly, the inclination) to delve into that, but Bishonen is a very experienced admin, so you'll need something better than a minor altercation on the Trump talk page, I'm afraid. Personally, if I were you, I'd heed Bishonen's advice. --[[User:Randykitty|Randykitty]] ([[User talk:Randykitty|talk]]) 13:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC) |
*I looked at the edit on the Trump talk page and while I in general agree with you in what you write in that section, I also think that Bishonen was correct in redacting that particular edit (personally, I'd probably revdel'ed it. Admins have to deal with issues like this all the time and I don't think that the fact that you disagreed with redacting the comment makes {{u|Bishonen}} involved regarding you. I have not looked at the topic ban issue itself as I have no time (nor, frankly, the inclination) to delve into that, but Bishonen is a very experienced admin, so you'll need something better than a minor altercation on the Trump talk page, I'm afraid. Personally, if I were you, I'd heed Bishonen's advice. --[[User:Randykitty|Randykitty]] ([[User talk:Randykitty|talk]]) 13:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC) |
||
:::[[User:Randykitty]]: Sorry, does this mean you agree they are not uninvolved? They even e-mailed me about this. Meanwhile, they have not redacted insults on other article talkpages by the way. The point of the topic ban is that it is only meant to '''humiliate me''', as I had agreed to stop editing before I was banned. Do you agree with Magnolia too by the way?[[User:Zigzig20s|Zigzig20s]] ([[User talk:Zigzig20s#top|talk]]) 13:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:52, 12 November 2016
|
|||||||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Nomination of The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education for deletion
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/Ambox_warning_orange.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_orange.svg.png)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
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. Randykitty (talk) 10:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- Randykitty, I believe that the journal is notable enough. Zigzig, you told me to leave you alone, but you know, you frequently say one thing but mean another. I think we can restore this and make it work. Randy, if it's OK with you I'll restore, add what I found, and then we can take it from there, OK? BTW, I saw the comment in the AfD, but surely being picked by JSTOR is "selective"--even our JSTOR-lite has access to it, besides another database I'm not familiar with, Ethnic NewsWatch. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- User:Drmies: Hey, I feel insulted by Wikipedia right now. But good luck.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- User:Drmies: Do you mind if I ask you, how would you characterize the following words, ""bullshit", "fucking", "bullshit", "BS", "BS", "fucking", "Dumbass", "go FYS""? Would you say they are rude and insulting? Also, can you please let me know if we are no longer allowed to discuss content about articles on talkpages? It looks like there might be a new policy, all of a sudden. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Dear Zigzig, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, but ok--those are bad words, but whether they're blockable depends on context, frequency, etc. I don't know where you stand on "political correctness", for instance; if you like the new blunt talk that is sweeping the country, this isn't so bad. And yes, we are allowed to discuss content on talk pages (I assume you mean user talk pages), unless of course one is topic-banned, or someone told someone not to post on their talk page, or there's something else going on, etc. Hard to speak generally. I just removed the notability tag from that journal--I'm surprised you didn't see that it was founded by Theodore Cross, who is a (white) civil rights hero. But I found the journal cited in so many places that there's no way it's not notable, and thanks for writing it up. I wish I had known about the AfD, but hey. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- User:Drmies: See below Magnolia's comment if interested. That journal looks fabulous, thanks, but I am very insulted by Wikipedia right now. To answer your question, I am opposed to political correctness as it is a form of modern-day obscurantism, but I also never swear and I am never around anybody who swears in real life. I only hear swearwords in movies sometimes. Actually, the topic I am not allowed to mention is a staple of political correctness; not being allowed to discuss it seems obscurantist. Now, swearing at those who disagree with us is just bad manners, and it makes editing Wikipedia horribly unpleasant, which is unacceptable IMO. Discussing content diplomatically on article talkpages should still be allowed, though. Are proponents of political correctness more prone to swearing? Perhaps we could cite a journal article about this, once we all feel welcome and respected again. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- User:Drmies: Do you mind if I ask you, are editors who level ""bullshit", "fucking", "bullshit", "BS", "BS", "fucking", "Dumbass", "go FYS"" at others, also allowed to use a personal blog as an in-line reference now? Is this another new rule, all of a sudden? Thank you for your time.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Whether blogs are acceptable or not depends on who is doing the blogging, and what the venue is. I am not sure what WP:RS has to say on the topic, but typically we should treat those matters at WP:RSN. If I had a blog, no one should cite it. If User:Wadewitz had a blog, everyone should cite it. Maybe. I know the Washington Post has a "blog" (and I think NYT and WSJ do too), but it's filled by their writers, and I assume there's some editorial control, so that's more acceptable than my WordPress blog. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Dear Zigzig, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, but ok--those are bad words, but whether they're blockable depends on context, frequency, etc. I don't know where you stand on "political correctness", for instance; if you like the new blunt talk that is sweeping the country, this isn't so bad. And yes, we are allowed to discuss content on talk pages (I assume you mean user talk pages), unless of course one is topic-banned, or someone told someone not to post on their talk page, or there's something else going on, etc. Hard to speak generally. I just removed the notability tag from that journal--I'm surprised you didn't see that it was founded by Theodore Cross, who is a (white) civil rights hero. But I found the journal cited in so many places that there's no way it's not notable, and thanks for writing it up. I wish I had known about the AfD, but hey. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think that being included in JSTOR means that a journal is notable. The link you added doesn't work for me, it doesn't show the quote but goes to a list of references instead. In any case, given the paucity of participation in the AfD (beside me as nom, only one, now-blocked, editor), I think that should best be treated as a PROD, which can be restored if contested. Depending on the sources you can find, we can take it to AfD again or let it be as it is. --Randykitty (talk) 17:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Hey thanks again for writing this up. Researching it to find more references has been very educational. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Dear User:Drmies: Thank you. I am currently on strike. See Category:Wikipedians on strike.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking a break from years of disrupting Wikipedia. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 11:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- Because everyone will take a random IP address's rant seriously, as opposed to User:Drmies's congratulations above.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking a break from years of disrupting Wikipedia. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 11:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- Dear User:Drmies: Thank you. I am currently on strike. See Category:Wikipedians on strike.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Talkback
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg/40px-Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg.png)
Message added 18:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
--Cameron11598 (Talk) 18:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
You've got mail!
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/Mail-message-new.svg/40px-Mail-message-new.svg.png)
Message added 06:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
--Cameron11598 (Talk) 06:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
The following sanction now applies to you:
You have been indefinitely topic banned from all pages related to climate change, broadly construed. Please read WP:TBAN to see what "topic banned" means
You have been sanctioned for persistent disruptive editing on Myron Ebell and its talkpage. Your restoration of 8-year-old tags for tone and cleanup, with no specific claim of what the tone and cleanup issues might be , and no input on talk — merely "I did not add these tags. Please respect the other editors who did"[1] — is the last straw. I notice you made that edit after claiming no less than three times on the talkpage that you were leaving the article. It's getting quite hard to take those claims seriously. Your topic ban includes Myron Ebell and its talkpage, naturally.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, 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 of the above is unclear to you. Bishonen | talk 16:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- User:Bishonen: What exactly is the point? I have no intention to keep editing that topic, as I said on the talkpage. I simply added the tags back as they were removed without consensus. And, what about the swearwords on his talkpage and other BLP violations?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- And you've broken the topic ban twice. One at WP:BLPN and once at the page where bans are logged, which is only for, of course, logging bans, not discussing them. No more freebies, you are risking a block or even an indefinite ban from Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 16:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry I didn't know I was not allowed to edit anything about this topic anywhere any more. I apologize.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- User:Doug Weller: May I ask you one question though? Please don't block me for it, but I had posted this BLP violation notice before I was topic banned. I understand why you would want to remove the second message where I say I was topic banned, but why remove the first one? The swearwords are still on his talkpage for example. Just asking about policy here. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Ah, hadn't checked the timestamp for the first one. I'll restore that. Doug Weller talk 17:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- User:Doug Weller: OK thanks. Can you please check the talkpage as well? Hours before I was topic banned, I had warned I would stop editing about this topic. The only edit I did was in good faith, reinserting the "clean-up" and "tone" tags and asking the editor who had added them if he agreed with their removal without consensus by another editor. I don't understand why I was topic banned for that. I was trying to reach consensus as per policy. I was not editing about the topic any more.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- User:Doug Weller: Do you think it's normal that I was addressed with rude words like "bullshit", "fucking", "bullshit", "BS", "BS", "fucking", "Dumbass", "go FYS" while I tried to remain diplomatic, NPOV and collaborative on the talkpage? I've never seen anything like it.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Yes, you said it on the talkpage once, twice, and again. And then you came back again to add the tags. That is the exact point of topic banning you. You seem to think adding tags isn't editing, but it certainly is. I see an editor cussing at you on the talkpage, yes. You were being unreasonable, and tempers got hot. That's the reason you are also banned from further timewasting on the talkpage. I don't know what you mean by "BLP violations" on the talkpage — I don't see any — but then your refusal or inability to get the point about the BLP vio I recently removed at Talk:Donald Trump (see this section) makes me wonder if you know what WP:BLP is about. And if you had taken the trouble to click on WP:TBAN, as I told you to in my ban notice, you would have known you weren't allowed to edit anything about this topic anywhere any more. But then you have ignored so much advice and information from me that it's par for the course. Don't expect me to come to this page again. Bishonen | talk 17:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC).
- User:Bishonen: There are two swearwords on Ebell's talkpage. Dating back to 2006! This has nothing to do with me. And the article includes long quotes about lawsuits; it is POV. And I am not sure why you are bringing up Donald Trump.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- User:Bishonen: Right, so you didn't see my message on the talkpage. Would you agree that I did this in order to reach consensus, and that the topic ban should be revoked since I have no intention whatsoever to edit about this topic anyway?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- No, I would not. That was just one detail. You were linked to full instructions on how to appeal the ban in the ban notice. You may regard the appeal to the banning admin as declined, and try one of the other venues if you think it's worth the trouble (considering you have no intention whatsoever to edit about this topic anyway). Bishonen | talk 17:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC).
- I feel insulted.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- User:Bishonen: Could you please explain which edits you deemed "disruptive" in comparison to the other editor, BatteryIncluded (who addressed me with words like "bullshit", "fucking", "bullshit", "BS", "BS", "fucking", "Dumbass", "go FYS") please? I tried to be very diplomatic, NPOV and collaborative on the talkpage, while attempting to address the issues of tone and clean-up in the article. You did not provide specific explanations, so I am in the dark. Thank you so much for your time.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- You say the thing which is not so. You made no attempts to "address the issues of tone and clean-up in the article", unless you count restoring tone and clean-up tags (after complaining that "the article looks terrible, with two tone and clean-up tags"(!)). What you did address was exclusively your insistence on calling Ebell a climate-change sceptic or "analyst", in preference to a climate-change denier, in defiance of reliable sources. That's neither a tone nor a cleanup issue, but an NPOV issue. I agree BatteryIncluded lost their temper and spoke rudely to you, and shouldn't have. But I'm afraid I have some sympathy with them after your relentless rehashing of the same weak argument (basically "While his critics say he denies it, he happens to be skeptical of climate change") over and over. And now I really must be going. You were completely unreceptive when I tried nicely to give you useful information.[2][3][4] To quote you, "please respect my time". Take it to one of the boards you have been told about.[5] Bishonen | talk 23:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC).
- User:Bishonen: Did you not see User:Magnolia677's response on the talkpage, where they agree with me (not you)? I still do not understand why you topic banned me. Is it simply that you disagree with us? Do you really not see a POV problem with casting Ebell as a "denier", and not even being allowed to discuss the article on the talkpage?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Zigzig20s, thank you for mentioning my edit to Myron Ebell. I must sympathize with your frustration with User:BatteryIncluded, who appears to have no tolerance for the word "skeptic" on that article, despite reliable sources that refer to him repeatedly by that very word. In fact, he reverted my edit, and in doing so removed sourced content. Let us hope an administrator might review that editor's actions as well. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- This is inaccurate. User:Zigzig20s added a characterization of Myron Ebell as a "climate change analyst", in contradiction to all available evidence, to the lede. I repeatedly asked him to provide a source for this characterization, which he never did. I changed it to "global warming skeptic", which User:Zigzig20s twice reverted back to his bogus "climate change analyst", so he is the one who has no tolerance for the word "skeptic". He also called my change vandalism. We are to assume good faith, but sometimes people prove the opposite with their words and actions ... in this case it correctly led to a topic ban. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 10:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- That moment when a random IP address who previously only edited about Alicia Machado leaves a rant. This is not about any specific topic at all, which I won't talk about, but a matter of style for ledes. My understanding is that we always start with the broadest definition and then move on to specifics. This is just how Western rhetoric works.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- This is inaccurate. User:Zigzig20s added a characterization of Myron Ebell as a "climate change analyst", in contradiction to all available evidence, to the lede. I repeatedly asked him to provide a source for this characterization, which he never did. I changed it to "global warming skeptic", which User:Zigzig20s twice reverted back to his bogus "climate change analyst", so he is the one who has no tolerance for the word "skeptic". He also called my change vandalism. We are to assume good faith, but sometimes people prove the opposite with their words and actions ... in this case it correctly led to a topic ban. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 10:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- Zigzig20s, thank you for mentioning my edit to Myron Ebell. I must sympathize with your frustration with User:BatteryIncluded, who appears to have no tolerance for the word "skeptic" on that article, despite reliable sources that refer to him repeatedly by that very word. In fact, he reverted my edit, and in doing so removed sourced content. Let us hope an administrator might review that editor's actions as well. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- User:Bishonen: Did you not see User:Magnolia677's response on the talkpage, where they agree with me (not you)? I still do not understand why you topic banned me. Is it simply that you disagree with us? Do you really not see a POV problem with casting Ebell as a "denier", and not even being allowed to discuss the article on the talkpage?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- You say the thing which is not so. You made no attempts to "address the issues of tone and clean-up in the article", unless you count restoring tone and clean-up tags (after complaining that "the article looks terrible, with two tone and clean-up tags"(!)). What you did address was exclusively your insistence on calling Ebell a climate-change sceptic or "analyst", in preference to a climate-change denier, in defiance of reliable sources. That's neither a tone nor a cleanup issue, but an NPOV issue. I agree BatteryIncluded lost their temper and spoke rudely to you, and shouldn't have. But I'm afraid I have some sympathy with them after your relentless rehashing of the same weak argument (basically "While his critics say he denies it, he happens to be skeptical of climate change") over and over. And now I really must be going. You were completely unreceptive when I tried nicely to give you useful information.[2][3][4] To quote you, "please respect my time". Take it to one of the boards you have been told about.[5] Bishonen | talk 23:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC).
- No, I would not. That was just one detail. You were linked to full instructions on how to appeal the ban in the ban notice. You may regard the appeal to the banning admin as declined, and try one of the other venues if you think it's worth the trouble (considering you have no intention whatsoever to edit about this topic anyway). Bishonen | talk 17:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC).
- And you've broken the topic ban twice. One at WP:BLPN and once at the page where bans are logged, which is only for, of course, logging bans, not discussing them. No more freebies, you are risking a block or even an indefinite ban from Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 16:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
For your attention
I have left a message on the talk page of User talk:Bishonen which you may wish to comment on. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- User:Magnolia677: I am confused about some apparently brand-new policy positions. Could you please help me get a confirmation that:
- 1) removing "clean-up" and "tone" tags from articles without consensus is now WP policy?
- 2) levelling ""bullshit", "fucking", "bullshit", "BS", "BS", "fucking", "Dumbass", "go FYS"" at other editors is now WP policy?
- 3) citing personal blogs as reliable third-party sources is now WP policy?
- Do let know if you can find out. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- In my half day so far editing that article, I can assure you it is biased in its tone, and some of the sources cited either do not support the content, or were cherrypicked. I really have no feelings one way or the other about the person mentioned in the biography (and I do think climate change is a genuine concern), my concern is strictly with the integrity of Wikipedia. If the person in the biography is a charlatan, reliable and credible sources should not be hard to find to support that. Regarding the potty mouth edit summaries, I have not looked at them but will take your word for it. I have in the past always left a caution on an editor's talk page when their language is vulgar, and a few weeks ago took an editor to ANI over it. I was well supported there. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- User:Magnolia677: Feel free to do a word search for "bullshit", "fucking", "bullshit", "BS", "BS", "fucking", "Dumbass", "go FYS" on the article talkpage. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- In my half day so far editing that article, I can assure you it is biased in its tone, and some of the sources cited either do not support the content, or were cherrypicked. I really have no feelings one way or the other about the person mentioned in the biography (and I do think climate change is a genuine concern), my concern is strictly with the integrity of Wikipedia. If the person in the biography is a charlatan, reliable and credible sources should not be hard to find to support that. Regarding the potty mouth edit summaries, I have not looked at them but will take your word for it. I have in the past always left a caution on an editor's talk page when their language is vulgar, and a few weeks ago took an editor to ANI over it. I was well supported there. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
President-elect Trump/"uninvolved"
User:Drmies and User:Randykitty: Before I was topic-banned, User:Bishonen redacted someone's comment about Hillary on Donald Trump's talkpage, and I called them out on it. How does that make them uninvolved? How is the topic ban not in retaliation? Note that I am not saying that it is, just wondering, given the curious context. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- I looked at the edit on the Trump talk page and while I in general agree with you in what you write in that section, I also think that Bishonen was correct in redacting that particular edit (personally, I'd probably revdel'ed it. Admins have to deal with issues like this all the time and I don't think that the fact that you disagreed with redacting the comment makes Bishonen involved regarding you. I have not looked at the topic ban issue itself as I have no time (nor, frankly, the inclination) to delve into that, but Bishonen is a very experienced admin, so you'll need something better than a minor altercation on the Trump talk page, I'm afraid. Personally, if I were you, I'd heed Bishonen's advice. --Randykitty (talk) 13:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- User:Randykitty: Sorry, does this mean you agree they are not uninvolved? They even e-mailed me about this. Meanwhile, they have not redacted insults on other article talkpages by the way. The point of the topic ban is that it is only meant to humiliate me, as I had agreed to stop editing before I was banned. Do you agree with Magnolia too by the way?Zigzig20s (talk) 13:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC)