Emptyvoices

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

July 2023

Your recent edits to Talk:Palmer Report could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I did make suggestions as did others. They didn't listen. They don't have credible sources to back their claim. And I am not the legal party making the threat. I am only passing along an observation that the party concerned is reviewing pending litigation. But I am not affiliated with them in any way. How is telling the truth about what a separate party is doing considered wrong? This would impact the user and Wikipedia because of an inaccurate act of malice on The Palmer Report? But as it's not from me as the litigating party, then it is your risk to take. I regret ever donating to Wikipedia in the first place if you allow these insults and slurs to stand. And I don't care if you block me. As long as I'm removed from the donor. Frankly, I'm disgusted with what you allowed to happen. Emptyvoices (talk) 16:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

But thank you for threatening me. I only just subscribed as a donor and this is how I am treated for conveying a message. I am completely disgusted. I told the donations area of Wikipedia how I was threatened when I first subscribed after donating for months. I'm not suing you. The Palmer Report was talking about litigation. Not me. God forbid I give you that warning and get threatened for doing so. No good deed goes unpunished. Emptyvoices (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Just a courtesy notice that I've mentioned you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Can some extra eyes be directed toward Talk:Palmer Report? Legal threats, etc. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that as well as all the other insults that you refer to editors in terms of using slurs. I don't care what you do to my account but I've reported you. Calling editors names is not appropriate. There is something called 'the Golden Mean' in journalism. As a moderator, you should be more familiar with it. Obviously, you are not. Emptyvoices (talk) 00:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

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.

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I didn't edit anything. I posted a truthful comment in a forum and I've been insulted for it. Furthermore, Molly White has been calling people 'meat puppets' who have also commented. I've been donating to Wikipedia for months and I feel like I'm not allowed to have a voice and I get insulted or threatened when I try to make a comment. This isn't journalism, accurate interpretation or the Golden Mean. I canceled my donations because of this. In Quora, I don't get threatened and if someone is called a name, even by a moderator, they are reprimanded and suspended. Obviously, you don't seem to care. Emptyvoices (talk) 00:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

There aren't any forums on Wikipedia. Article talk pages are intended for discussion on how to improve the article. They aren't intended as "forums" where editors can post random stuff that they think may be of interest or their own personal commentary etc. Also I suggest you stop talking about being a donator. It doesn't concern us editors in any way, as it's not something which affects us. Heck plenty of editors think donation to the WMF is dumb and there's often friction between the WMF and editors. I'm not quite in that boat but still I don't care whether you donate. If you're not happy with something regarding your donation, you're welcome to take it up with the WMF, although I'm not sure what you expect from them as for all the WMF's flaws, there's zero chance there going to tell you that a donation gives you any special right over article contents. Likewise while the WMF's donation marketing has been heavily criticised by use editors at times, these have been for other reasons, not because it suggests donating entitles people to affect content. So if you thought donation gave you some special right on article content, that's likely mostly on you. Nil Einne (talk) 06:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

July 2023

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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Courcelles (talk) 01:56, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I would never think of posting back on the Palmer Report. My inclination was to post on other topics. I have a great interest in history. I thought avoiding the Palmer Report went without saying. If you like, I can provide writing samples. I am truly sorry and I'm sorry you can't accept my apology. I was in grief and I'm also having surgery today. I can only apologize for my behavior and promise it will not happen again. I usually keep my anger and emotions under control because I lost so many people in the way of family in the last three years among other things. I wouldn't wish it on anyone. But I truly am sorry if I tainted things so much, the response to my apology was hostile. But I suppose I deserve it. I failed myself, my father and my family. Emptyvoices (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I only joined as a subscribed on July 3rd and I was writing in support of the Palmer Report. My first posts seemed to go unanswered. I posted that the 'fake news' should be removed and provided a source. I admit, I allowed myself to get carried away and I acted inappropriately by threatening the original editors and moderators with third-party legal action. Although this is possible, Wikipedia is already aware of the possibility and my using it as an ax over their heads isn't appropriate or professional. I also didn't understand and took offense to the word meat puppet. I admit, the word still stings. My emotions ran high today since it is the anniversary of my father's death. Meat puppets was a slight he was called in Vietnam. And I flashed back to the time of his death. And I'm sorry. I took my anger and emotion out on the moderators. I did myself and my father a disservice by attacking others without explanation and that is my error and fault for doing so. I can only promise it won't happen again. I'm not usually like this. I was just caught up in my grief and I apologize. I took a chance to apologize to the one moderator in person on Twitter. I hope I may have her forgiveness whether or not this petition is approved. I feel terrible for what I did. Emptyvoices (talk) 01:09, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Given your comments here yesterday, I'm not buying it. I'm unsure if you simply plan to treat Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND or if this is a temporary outburst based around your grief. Either way, it would be inappropriate for me to lift the block at this time. I suggest waiting at least three months and I suggest you propose a topic ban around the Palmer Report at the very least. Yamla (talk) 09:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

I want to see if you will consider removing the indefinite ban on my account. I fully admit that I was in the wrong for doing what I did seven months ago. I lost my father and family members and was using that topic as a source of emotional venting, which was horribly inappropriate. I will never do it again. Please ban the Palmer Report any any affiliates although I no longer read that material. I'm focused on my MSW and my study of history. Those are my interests. Social policy, social welfare, psychology, history, etc. I prefer sources that are primary or secondary in nature. I wish I could take back what I did. I hated major parts of myself for it for months and I am sorry. How can I be a social worker if I behave in such a terrible manner. All I can say is that I grew from it. If you don't believe me, it is hard to blame you. The first impression I gave was horrendous. How can trust be initiated? If you give me a chance, I swear to be discreet, patient, open minded and respectful. But with what I did, I can understand not trusting or forgiving me. If you decide against me, I still want you to know how sorry I am, regardless. I deserved to be banned. Emptyvoices (talk) 1:35 am, Yesterday (UTC−5)

Accept reason:

User has agreed to make constructive edits. Unblock conditions: Zero tolerance for WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. WP:TOPICBAN on Palmer Report anything to do with fake or satirical news, broadly construed. This means you may not edit about these topics on Wikipedia. You may appeal this topic ban at WP:AN after six months. Thanks, and welcome back.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Unblock discussion

This is pretty disjointed, but it looks like you agree to a WP:TOPICBAN on the Palmer Report. Can you more clearly describe what constructive edits you would make? Thanks.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Please state clearly that you withdraw any threat to take legal action against Wikipedia or its editors. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I withdraw any legal action against Wikipedia and accept accountability for all the mistakes I made. I have no interest at all in the Palmer Report or news really, except for sourcing and it must be as neutral as possible in bias. I'm studying to be a social worker. I want to focus on edits regarding social welfare and social justice, but well supported, factual edits. The topics I am researching are wage inequality, the Great Prosperity between 1947-1978, wage stagnation from tax cuts and how that has led to politicial polarization and the fading of the middle class and increasing wage inequality. Also social policies that would improve the circumstances. I'm resarching these tops constantly in my studies and put them forward in APA style in writing. It is difficult to provide summaries of all the areas I wish to address. But they'll be fact driven in line with my academic pursuits. I also have a passion for studying history. I've traveled a great deal, read and spoke to historians. I particularly like British history and its evolution and contributions to American government. If you wish, I could send you the papers I've written for my last few classes..some samples of my writing and research. I will need more than this amount of space and a place to send them as they are word documents written in APA style. It's up to you. Emptyvoices (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I cannot see unblocking you to edit about Palmer Report anywhere on Wikipedia at all.. Hence, "WP:TOPICBAN Palmer Report, broadly construed.." You should read and thoroughly understand that. We rally don't need your papers from school. You'll want to avoid adding WP:original research to Wikipedia. Your research skills will be helpful; your papers not so much. ("All content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking.")

@Courcelles: OK to unblock with a TBAN on Palmer Report, broadly construed? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I can see it, though maybe a little broader, anything to do with fake or satirical news, not just Palmer? Courcelles (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

That sounds better. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I will be using academic journals and peer-reviewed studies. If I reference the news, I prefer to limit it to neutral, more centrist sources like the Associated Press, Reuters, or PBS, which have a reputation for neutrality and being centrist. However, I prefer to use academic journals and studies or government sources in certain respects (non-partisan). I offered you the papers I'm writing for social welfare and policy so you can get a sense of what I'm writing although my school designates particular reading material that do have some bias. I haven't been on the Palmer Report or anything similar in months. You are free to ban me from similar sites to the Palmer Report, or if you prefer, a blanket ban on all news sites for a trial period. Perhaps a year? They would only serve as additional reference material but if it makes you comfortable, I'm happy to abide those restrictions. I like the Lancet, BMJ and the National Institute of Health. The PEW Research Center has a foundation for credibility.

I'm doing a social policy examination studying reproductive rights and the intersectional impact on minority and marginalized communities as it pertains to healthcare, provider access, wage equality, insurance coverage, history in the sense of segregation and remnants of segregation still in existence and quality of healthcare. In studies, African American communities face a lower quality of care and healthcare workers in some instances retain a perception from racial myths that they can't feel as much pain because they have 'thick skin' or have less nerve endings. A myth perpetuated since the time of slavery.

I think addressing policy on an intersectional level provides a unique insight. So, my edits would pertain to social policies and welfare such as the one above.

I'm not sure what else to say. If I could take back what I did seven months ago, I would. A thousand times, I would. But my focus is on my studies and building an encyclopedia or offering edits based on primary and secondary sources as I listed above.

It's up to you. Emptyvoices (talk) 04:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I think I already unblocked you. Unblock conditions: Zero tolerance for WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. WP:TOPICBAN on Palmer Report anything to do with fake or satirical news, You will need news sources for WP:RS. But you cannot write about Palmer report and any outlet described as "fake news" or "satirical. "Those are not WP:RS anyway, so they won't help. No, your papers would probably fall under WP:OR, though your sources might be useful. If a source says it, it's ok. If it's a conclusion you came to in a paper, that's OR. We summarize what sources say. We do not draw conclusions. Feel free to ask, cause sometimes people get lost in semantics. Hope that helps. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I apologize. I didn't see the block lift until after I wrote the clarification about what sources I typically used. And I wasn't going to post the papers. I only offered them in good faith to show you sources and how I write in relation to certain topics. That was all. It was only meant for demonstration purposes in support of my appeal and that was all. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to make solid, factual edits and use facts to help provide new information in that regard. Emptyvoices (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2024 (UTC)