User talk:F2Milk

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, F2Milk! Thank you for your contributions. I am Rubbish computer and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Rubbish computer 10:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

massacre page[edit]

Page is about massacre that happened, feel free to create another page for offensive.. Sukhoi 24 (talk) 11:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And try adding some actual content about the offencsive now a copy paste of the massacre word-for-word. Try your sandbokx first.Lihaas (talk) 13:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trump timeline[edit]

It would be much appreciated if you would not accuse me of pushing a particular point of view. A careful look through all three pages of the Trump timeline will show edits by myself describing the man giving successful speeches and rallies, handing out medals, making good appointments, abiding by Congressional norms, and so forth, as well as removing critical entries such as the one concerning the 'March for Science', which had little to do with Trump directly, even though he was of principal interest to the marchers. However, I am not shy to include entries about his habit of failing to pass legislation and of making disgusting remarks (in which case I think there has been much restraint on my part - consider the tweet about Mika Brzezinski and facelift wounds, etc, ad nauseam). By contrast, to describe Trump's speech at Suffolk County as a matter simply of talking cozily about security and crime, and to give no suggestion of the unprecedented reaction by the nation's police forces from coast to coast to Trump's comments about a well-recognized technique of police brutality (later said by Sarah Sanders to be what she "believed" to be a "joke"), could easily give the impression of pushing a particular point of view. The clause containing reference to the revulsion at the top of all police departments refers specifically to comments made in the speech, and is just as relevant to his presidency (if not in some ways more relevant) as the reaction of world leaders to Trump's decision to remove the US from the Paris Agreement, or North Korea's reaction to his talk of nuclear war, which have been unquestioningly included in the timeline.

I do not wish this to sound confrontational, because I believe that you have contributed much of value to the timeline, such as a wealth of information about Trump's conversations with world leaders and businesspeople which I am sure will be useful to people in the future. But regardless of anyone's personal political leanings, the timeline simply cannot be permitted to read like an extended White House press release. All the best. Cpaaoi (talk) 02:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines[edit]

I don't mean this to sound patronizing, but your edit history does indicate that you may not be aware of certain guidelines on Wikipedia (see below). If you are already aware of these guidelines, then that is great.

Many thanks Cpaaoi (talk) 12:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just like you wish to quote guidelines a lot, means you should balance common sense otherwise you will be quoting a lot of Wiki guidelines and letting that rule how you edit stuff. There is no hard and fast rules here but that is something to ponder about.F2Milk (talk) 11:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trump silence on Russia[edit]

Just wondering what your perspective might be here: since you see fit to place information about things not said by people not in the Trump administration (i.e. Mueller, Sept 12) , do you think it might be appropriate to similarly point out President Trump's silence about Russian support of North Korea? Please see: https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-says-nothing-while-north-224221378.html Any thoughts much appreciated, F2Milk. Cpaaoi (talk) 10:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let me say that if has been reported in the news media that Trump has denied that there was any collusion in regards to the alleged Russian interference story. He blamed it on the Democrats and their failed run for the presidency and the news media doing their spin on the issue. Many points such as voting machines, Facebook, hacking, emails, DNC collusion in sabotaging Bernie Sanders has been brought up in the media. You can take your pick where you want put in your timeline about the Russian interference. So why do you think there is silence on Russian support for North Korea and then Russia voting on tougher North Korea sanctions? F2Milk (talk) 13:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The question is: does a policy of including things not said by people not in the administration imply that we ought to also include things not said by people who are in the administration? Thanks again Cpaaoi (talk) 13:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The main question is you have to have a balance which boils down to NPOV. We are not here to report on what Trump does not say. We are are not mind readers. Just like we should not be trying to decipher what he tweets, which many in the mainstream media is guilty of. Many of the articles in the media is just opinion pieces on what Trump said, or what he should do or not do. We just report the facts laid out. A timeline is not a place to report on Trump's silence on a certain issue if that helps. Does that answer your question. F2Milk (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair enough; that answers the question about whether we are not to include things not said by members of the administration. Does that mean we agree that it is also the case that things not said by people not in the administration also do not belong in the timeline? Thanks again Cpaaoi (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First things we can agree on is not to include things said by people who are not part of the administration. I realized that there were a lot of criticisms by people outside the administration about the actions by the administration. And that there will always be critics or detractors out there. There was plenty of outrage when the travel ban was enacted, the reinstated of the Keystone or Dakota pipeline, etc.F2Milk (talk) 11:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfCs[edit]

Also, if you would like to make your perspective known on the RfCs I currently have open against your edits on the Trump timeline, now could be an opportune moment. All the best. Cpaaoi (talk) 10:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again; I think it's only right to place a quick reminder about the RfC which is currently open against your Jeff Sessions edit on the Trump timeline? The identification of any specific passage in any source will do - no-one else has done it yet. I've even listed the four sources you gave, in order to make things easier and clearer. No commentary is necessary; just a simple quotation or even a line number will do! Otherwise it's going to look as if you've been making things up! All the best! Cpaaoi (talk) 14:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your eagerness to settle this issue. But I have already address some of the points you made. Thank you. F2Milk (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Single-purpose account[edit]

Hello again, F2Milk; I have been having a good look through your edit history, and was wondering if you are aware of the Wikipedia guidelines on "single-purpose accounts"? WP:SPA Many thanks again Cpaaoi (talk) 12:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that you are removing the SPA tags from your edits. Please stop doing this: these tags serve a particular function and exist on Wikipedia for a reason. This account more than meets the definition of an SPA. Please read: WP:SPA. Conversely, I have also noticed that you have been adding your own notes to my signature, about "POV-pushing". If you could direct me to the Wikipedia guidelines which instruct this particular usage, I would be most grateful. Please be aware that if no such guidelines are demonstrated and this continues to be added to my signature, I may pass the matter further up the chain for arbitration. Many thanks again Cpaaoi (talk) 19:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please be my guest to challenge this. I brought up the civility issue, but you claim it is within your rights. It is within my rights to post in what timelines are needed. If you had check with proper due diligence, I have posted in different timelines other than the Presidency timeline. So you better have a better argument about me being a single-purpose account, which you are an account pushing the Russian investigation narrative. So it is within my rights to do so, since you push civility to the side.F2Milk (talk) 09:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This account falls squarely within the definition of a single-purpose account. Many thanks again. Cpaaoi (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you failed to notice that I have been editing in other topics. I just like doing timelines, while you like to post in the Russian interference timeline. Who are you to make tell me othewise?F2Milk (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Civility[edit]

I note that you described me as being "silly" on the 18th of August. It would be much appreciated if you would refrain from using such incivil epithets in future. Many thanks again! WP:CIVIL Cpaaoi (talk) 22:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that you have refrain from being civil yourself, when you were question about putting the notice behind all my posts in the discussions, that is hypocritical. Yours actions are silly, not you if you wish for me to elaborate. So this is not a personal attack. Have fun trying to decipher this.F2Milk (talk) 09:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that there is a difference between describing a person as silly and their actions as silly; and both here are regarded as incivil WP:CIVIL. To repeat myself again; if you have any specific complaint to make, then please do "elaborate", or stop making this claim. If you continue to make this claim without substantiation, that too may be passed to administrators for arbitration. Many thanks again! Cpaaoi (talk) 12:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have brought an issue to you, yet you claim it is within your 'right' to continue posting the note behind my posts in the discussion sections. So if you think you can call that a claim with much substantiation, then you are sadly mistaken. So I am also within my rights to say your actions are silly. Just as you claim you are within your own rights. As I mentioned thing things would have been better if cooler heads had prevailed here, but you decided to make this personal and say its within your 'rights'. Thanks again for listening.F2Milk (talk) 13:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you have specific complaints; please specify. And you are not within your rights, according to the guidelines. Thanks again. Cpaaoi (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines according to you? When common sense or civility gets thrown out of the window, then what is the point of guidelines. Instead of inflaming the situation, just try to work things out. That is the spirit of Wikipedia. Hope you understand.F2Milk (talk) 22:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page disturbances[edit]

Hi, first of all thanks very much for the time and effort you contribute to Wikipedia. You clearly want to improve the quality of the project and are here for the right reasons.

Regarding your ongoing debate on the talk page of the presidency timeline. I would ask you not to make any more replies to or to directly address the editor with whom you are having what appears to be a personal dispute. I realize that within your dispute there are article related points and it is necessary to debate in order to reach a consensus so some advice based on Wikipedia policy would be:

Don't keep constantly addressing each other by name. Reduce or cease your use of the ping or alert templates as clearly both of you are watching the page. Furthermore your cesation of addressing the editor directly will make other editors feel more included in your discussions. Personal attacks can be subtle and do not by definition contain abusive language, but they can be avoided if you only address content and not the editor.
state your point only once. Your contributions on the talk page are there to demonstrate your ideas to a group of editors, not to convince one person of your point. Replying each time the other person replies not only weakens your own arguments and clutters the talk page, but it also misses the point of talk pages, which is to improve the article not to improve your peers.
Don't continually point out flaws. A subtle way of doing this is pointing out what you consider to be inappropriate behavior on the part of your colleagues. Instructional comments like, "You shouldn't do this...", or "should do that", are not conducive to the improvement of the article and if repeated frequently, amount to an accusation which can be interpreted as not assuming good faith.
scale back or cease your discussion with the party you are debating whilst a dispute resolution is in effect. The point of a dispute resolution is to achieve an outcome, not to achieve the outcome you prefer. While it may be tempting to reply to every comment made in a dispute, or to poison the well by pointing out what you see as an error on the part of the person who sought mediation, you need to have faith that the resolution system will run its course and provide a consensus for the outcome of the disputed article.

In summary, the way we behave on the talk page needs to be inclusive of all editors, focused on content and not on personal points or the people that make them. I have sent this advice, verbatim, to the other party involved in the debate and hope that the outcome will be that we are all able to have more fruitful discussions in the future. Thanks very much for your time and continued contributions.

Happy editing! Edaham (talk) 18:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2017 Q4, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages University Medical Center and Carolyn Goodman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, F2Milk. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, F2Milk. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Carter00000 (talk) 05:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious Topics Notice[edit]

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Carter00000 (talk) 07:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is F2Milk. Thank you.Carter00000 (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Such as a waste of time and resources. That's an observation. F2Milk (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read your statement about your belief that Wikipedia has a left-leaning bias. It's not uncommon among conservatives, and I've said for years that the answer is for more conservatives to show up and help with the work of filling and maintaining the site. However, I'd like to add something else I noticed: Wikipedia's content skews slightly left overall, and the professionally published media also skews slightly left overall. When Wikipedia skews left, it might not be that Wikieditors themselves are heavily biased in one direction. It might mean that Wikieditors are (at least on average) faithfully drawing from verifiable sources instead of posting their own opinions. If there is a liberal bias and that liberal bias is a problem, Wikipedia might be its reflection rather than its source. Maybe the answer is reliable conservative sources like the Wall Street Journal.[1] Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have zero authority to tell you what to do but 100% authority to tell you that being topic banned suuuuuuuuuuuuuucks. The thing is, AE doesn't work like a court of law. The admins aren't like judges who look at what you were accused of and then study each of the diffs brought as evidence and then answer only the question that they were asked. The impression that you make matters a lot--you'll notice that the only admin to respond so far thinks you should be sanctioned for WP:BATTLEGROUNDING, and no one accused you of that. I think you should go back and edit your personal statement so that it addresses the accusations that were brought against you instead of giving your general opinion of Wikipedia. Think "all business." The one that's up now makes it look like you care more about having a platform for your opinions than about showing that you contribute in good faith. Either explain why you weren't edit warring/weren't casting aspersions or, if you were, give people a reason to think it won't happen again.

As for your views on what's wrong with Wikipedia, you do have a venue: userspace essays! I've done a few myself. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that, while this sanction resulted from a discussion that took place at AE ([2]), this is a normal admin action, not an AE sanction, and may be appealed through the normal process. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade, I won't bow down to cowards who think that censoring other voices will make Wikipedia any better. Just because I called out so censorious things that have taken place, my account is blocked. This is why Wikipedia has failed. The Current Events section has always had new edits deleted and their editors banned by idiots who have destroyed Wikipedia by allowing only content by left-leaning media supporters and their sycophants. The admins and moderators are also part of the problem, in that they are nominated by the same idiots. Good luck and I hope Wikipedia will finish you idiots once and for all. F2Milk (talk) 08:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]