Vinny Gambino
Welcome!
editHi Vinny Gambino! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
Happy editing! Neutralitytalk 15:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Important alerts re editing on specific topics
edit
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.
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 governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues. 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.
--Neutralitytalk 15:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Please read the notes above and also our rules on consensus (and the burden of obtaining it), edit warring, and the three-revert rule. Thank you. Neutralitytalk 15:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Systematically going through my edits and reverting them, as well as ranting about me[1], constitutes WP:HARASSMENT, in particular WP:STALKING. Stop it immediately. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Snooganssnoogans Reverting edits without reason, editing furiously with a serious leftist bias, and threatening everyone who opposes you violates neutrality and is the very definition of harassment. Further, you started stalking me as soon as I began editing here. FYI - While you are obviously a full-time professional Wikipedia editor, you do not own this site nor have exclusive right to edit it to further your biased agenda. Leave me alone. Vinny Gambino (talk) 01:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Your attack on him here and the other attack are both unacceptable. You do appear to be WP:Hounding him. What he is doing is described there: "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam. The contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in mediation, incidents, and arbitration cases. Using dispute resolution can itself constitute hounding if it involves persistently making frivolous or meritless complaints about another editor." Calling someone a professional editor is suggesting that they are WP:PAID and such editors must declare themselves.
- Talk page posts are part of the discretionary sanctions regimes mentioned above. Note that you can be blocked from editing or banned from the area of American politics. You need to go to WP:ANI if you think another editor is egregiously violating our policies or sanction regimes. Oh, and when I post to another editor's talk page I normally add it to my watch list if for no other reason but to check for replies. Doug Weller talk 15:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Dear Doug Weller : Thank you for the advice. I have no idea who this editor is or why he has a problem with me. The issue with Snooganssnoogans started right after I made my first few edits. He reverted my edits without reason, and since then has followed me all over Wikipedia reverting my edits. It is almost laughable that he has accused me of stalking, when that is exactly how I met him - when he started stalking me right after I began editing. He is obviously a prolific full time professional Wikipedia editor, and I couldn't begin to revert even a tiny fraction of his edits. But someone with his experience obviously knows the rules and should have to follow the rules just like everyone else. But from looking at the numerous comments on his page as well as various article talk pages it is clear that he is proud of being abrasive and belligerent with not only other editors but many other folks. Further, he seems to think he can bully editors, in particular newer editors, until they get tired of it and just quit editing, leaving his biased agenda intact. But if you are telling me that if I try to go up against this long-time editor, regardless of facts, that I could be sanctioned while nothing will happen to him, then I understand your message. I honestly had no clue that editing Wikipedia articles was such a contentious issue. Vinny Gambino (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- "I honestly had no clue that editing Wikipedia articles was such a contentious issue." I assume you are genuinely new here, and not an editor returning under an alias. Wikipedians have daily disputes about any number of topics, and discussions can get heated. Wikipedia has an ever-expanding set or rules in an attempt to keep the situation under control. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution about ways to handle disputes. As a personal advice, try to remain calm and try to avoid personal grudges. Good luck with your editing. Dimadick (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- Dear Doug Weller : Thank you for the advice. I have no idea who this editor is or why he has a problem with me. The issue with Snooganssnoogans started right after I made my first few edits. He reverted my edits without reason, and since then has followed me all over Wikipedia reverting my edits. It is almost laughable that he has accused me of stalking, when that is exactly how I met him - when he started stalking me right after I began editing. He is obviously a prolific full time professional Wikipedia editor, and I couldn't begin to revert even a tiny fraction of his edits. But someone with his experience obviously knows the rules and should have to follow the rules just like everyone else. But from looking at the numerous comments on his page as well as various article talk pages it is clear that he is proud of being abrasive and belligerent with not only other editors but many other folks. Further, he seems to think he can bully editors, in particular newer editors, until they get tired of it and just quit editing, leaving his biased agenda intact. But if you are telling me that if I try to go up against this long-time editor, regardless of facts, that I could be sanctioned while nothing will happen to him, then I understand your message. I honestly had no clue that editing Wikipedia articles was such a contentious issue. Vinny Gambino (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Again, stop stalking me across the encyclopedia just to revert me. Your edit here[2] removes long-standing text and replaces it with misleading and inaccurate language. It becomes impossible for me to edit the encyclopedia if I'm followed around and reverted by a POV warrior who is here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Blocked
editDoug Weller warned you above about several personal attacks you had made against Snooganssnoogans, where you impugned Snoogans' character and good faith. (Note, Snoogans never did that to you.) You replied with yet another personal attack: ".. it is clear that he is proud of being abrasive and belligerent with not only other editors but many other folks. Further, he seems to think he can bully editors, in particular newer editors, until they get tired of it and just quit editing, leaving his biased agenda intact." I'm giving you a 48-hour block. Please take some time to read the guideline WP:Assume good faith and the policy WP:No personal attacks. They are both important tools for keeping conversations on Wikipedia from descending into brawls. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | tålk 12:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC).
- DearBishonen: Is there somwwhere that I can find all these Wikipedia rules? Vinny Gambino (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- I suggest you try these two pages: Wikipedia: 5 pillars and Help:Introduction to policies and guidelines/1. Note also that new editors are extended a lot of tolerance as regards knowledge of specific rules; as long as you follow common sense and respect other editors, people will gently explain the relevant policies to you, as Doug W did. Of course it's important to listen to them. Bishonen | tålk 17:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC).
- Dear Bishonen: Thanks. I really appreciate it. But I do have one question - why is violation of "neutral point of view" not enforced? What I mean is - as an example - the difference between the Trump Presidency article and the Obama Presidency article is astounding. The Trump article contains little if anything about his achievements and is loaded with negatives. And things that could be interpreted as either a negative or positive, such as strengthening the United States' southern border, are written with a decidedly left-leaning POV. In the lead it even says states that he made numerous false statements. On the other hand, the Obama article says virtually nothing about his numerous scandals and problems, such as IRS scandal, VA scandal, gunwalking, spying on press and Trump campaign, Solyndra, ISIS expansion, etc. The lead in particular is written as overwhelmingly positive. The entire article is written in glowing terms, and even the few negatives mentioned are buried deep in the article and spun in a way that makes them seem positive. If Wikipedia is supposed to be written with a neutral POV, per the rules, why the huge disparity between these two articles, and why isn't there sufficient enforcement of rules to prevent this? Vinny Gambino (talk) 04:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- Neutral point of view doesn't mean everybody (such as for instance every American president) is described in the same way; it means they are described in the way reliable sources describe them. Note that the sources aren't normally provided in the lead, since the lead is a summary of the whole article. For example: for reliable sources discussing Trump's false statements, you need to look at the section "False and misleading statements" and its footnotes. Bishonen | tålk 09:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC).
- Dear Bishonen - Thanks. I understand what you stated, but Wikipedia American political articles are clearly written with a decidedly left-leaning point of view, rather than a neutral point of view. And by looking back through the Edit History it's clear that editors who try to insert a neutral or right-leaning point of view quickly have their edits undone, while left-leaning edits are allowed to remain. This serves to basically negate the entire purpose of a Neutral POV rule. Vinny Gambino (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- Neutral point of view doesn't mean everybody (such as for instance every American president) is described in the same way; it means they are described in the way reliable sources describe them. Note that the sources aren't normally provided in the lead, since the lead is a summary of the whole article. For example: for reliable sources discussing Trump's false statements, you need to look at the section "False and misleading statements" and its footnotes. Bishonen | tålk 09:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC).
- Dear Bishonen: Thanks. I really appreciate it. But I do have one question - why is violation of "neutral point of view" not enforced? What I mean is - as an example - the difference between the Trump Presidency article and the Obama Presidency article is astounding. The Trump article contains little if anything about his achievements and is loaded with negatives. And things that could be interpreted as either a negative or positive, such as strengthening the United States' southern border, are written with a decidedly left-leaning POV. In the lead it even says states that he made numerous false statements. On the other hand, the Obama article says virtually nothing about his numerous scandals and problems, such as IRS scandal, VA scandal, gunwalking, spying on press and Trump campaign, Solyndra, ISIS expansion, etc. The lead in particular is written as overwhelmingly positive. The entire article is written in glowing terms, and even the few negatives mentioned are buried deep in the article and spun in a way that makes them seem positive. If Wikipedia is supposed to be written with a neutral POV, per the rules, why the huge disparity between these two articles, and why isn't there sufficient enforcement of rules to prevent this? Vinny Gambino (talk) 04:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- I suggest you try these two pages: Wikipedia: 5 pillars and Help:Introduction to policies and guidelines/1. Note also that new editors are extended a lot of tolerance as regards knowledge of specific rules; as long as you follow common sense and respect other editors, people will gently explain the relevant policies to you, as Doug W did. Of course it's important to listen to them. Bishonen | tålk 17:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC).
February 2021
edit
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Accuracy in Media. Binksternet (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- Dear Binksternet: I was trying to insert neutral language, but OK Vinny Gambino (talk) 09:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
edit
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Crime in Oakland, California into Oakland, California. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban
edit
The following topic ban now applies to you:
You have been indefinitely topic banned from editing any pages or discussions related to post-1992 American politics.
You have been sanctioned for persistent tendentious editing with no sign that you're learning how to select or use reliable sources. In this edit to Accuracy in Media, for instance, Snooganssnoogans reverted the changes of an IP a couple of hours earlier, thereby restoring content that had been in the lead for many months if not years, and that summarized well-sourced text further down in the article. You promptly reverted Snoogans, arguing in your edit summary that "the language of this edit is brazenly biased. The neutral language should be left in place."[3] I hope I'm making myself clear: you argued that the just-added IP text needed to be "left in place" because it was "neutral", while Snoogans' restoration of the long-time well-sourced language was "brazenly biased". I ask myself if you even knew that was what you were doing. Did you look at the page history at all? Anyway. I don't see that you have learned anything from your 48-hour block, or from my attempts to explain to you the importance of sourcing, and the relation between lead and article. You also completely ignore that relation in your edits to Oakland, California.
This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period to enforce the ban.
If you wish to appeal the ban, please read the appeals process. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Bishonen | tålk 16:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- Dear Bishonen - What is the duration of the topic ban? Vinny Gambino (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- "You have been indefinitely topic banned". That means the ban has no specific duration; it lasts until it's lifted. You can appeal to have it lifted either at WP:AN, WP:AE, or WP:ARCA. Take a look at those boards to decide. At AN, your appeal would be reviewed by the community; at AE, by uninvolved admins; and at ARCA, by the Arbitration Committee. See Appeals by sanctioned editors. My advice would be to avoid ARCA, both because the committee is very slow, and because if you appeal to them, you can't then go to any of the other noticeboards. So you'd better choose between AN and AE. More advice: you're allowed to appeal right away, but it would be a bad idea. Practically speaking, it rarely succeeds. The most promising road, IMO, is to forget about American politics for a few months, and spend the time editing in other, less contentious areas. Polish your skills as regards sourcing (which is your big problem) somewhere else. If you have constructive editing in other areas to point to, you'll have a much better chance of being unbanned. Note also that you can edit the sister projects, not just Wikipedia. You're only topic banned on Wikipedia. If you're able to edit about American politics in a neutral and competent way on other projects, it will also be something good to point to when/if you appeal the ban. Bishonen | tålk 19:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC).
- Please note that this applies to all pages including user talk pages. Doug Weller talk 20:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- Dear Bishonen and Doug Weller So what you're basically telling me is that I am banned for a long time no matter what, and that my chance of success on appeal isn't great. Gee - thanks. I understand I made some mistakes, but I'm just trying to understand what was so problematic and "tendentious" about my edits. It that same standard were applied to all editors, I am certain there are others who are at least as tenditious, biased, confrontational, and non-neutral as anything I've done. In particular your buddy and full-time editor Snooganssnoogans comes to mind. But I understand that Wikipedia protects liberal-biased edits and shuts down neutral or conservative voices. I am not about to appeal. I have pretty much had it with dealing with Wikipedia anyway. It's really too bad - Wikipedia could be a great source of information on American politics, but instead is just a repository for laudatory praise of liberals and trashing of conservatives. Vinny Gambino (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Fine. You don't seem to know the difference between conservative and far-right, which is part of your problem. National Review is a respectable conservative magazine, Breitbart isn't conservative or respectable. Doug Weller talk 17:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Dear Doug Weller - I am not arguing with you about National Review vs. Breitbart. But Wikipedia's de facto position regarding bias is that liberal bias is not only allowed, but allowed to flourish, while neutral and conservative viewpoints are systematically removed from all U.S. political articles. This isn't even debatable - just compare the Trump Presidency article with that of President Obama. The difference is stunning. It's the same for all U.S. political articles. There is nothing neutral, let alone remotely conservative, about any of them - they are invariably written with a seriously leftist slant by editors like Snooganssnoogans and numerous other prolific and extremely liberal editors, which renders the articles essentially useless for anyone seeking to get a true understanding of the subjects of the articles. I am at a loss to understand how Wikipedia can continue to espouse a neutral point of view when its editors and administrators are anything but neutral, and only the most liberal point of view is allowed to be a part of any article on U.S. politics. Vinny Gambino (talk) 13:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Fine. You don't seem to know the difference between conservative and far-right, which is part of your problem. National Review is a respectable conservative magazine, Breitbart isn't conservative or respectable. Doug Weller talk 17:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Dear Bishonen and Doug Weller So what you're basically telling me is that I am banned for a long time no matter what, and that my chance of success on appeal isn't great. Gee - thanks. I understand I made some mistakes, but I'm just trying to understand what was so problematic and "tendentious" about my edits. It that same standard were applied to all editors, I am certain there are others who are at least as tenditious, biased, confrontational, and non-neutral as anything I've done. In particular your buddy and full-time editor Snooganssnoogans comes to mind. But I understand that Wikipedia protects liberal-biased edits and shuts down neutral or conservative voices. I am not about to appeal. I have pretty much had it with dealing with Wikipedia anyway. It's really too bad - Wikipedia could be a great source of information on American politics, but instead is just a repository for laudatory praise of liberals and trashing of conservatives. Vinny Gambino (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
@Bishonen: I'm pretty sure this user violated their topic ban with this edit.--Jorm (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Also probably this one, too. Jorm (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Your edits to the Elena Kagan[4] and Sonia Sotomayor[5] pages are topic-ban violations. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
March 2021
edit
Hello, I'm Oshwah. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Al Sharpton seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
DS Alert
edit 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 any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated 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.
May 2021
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. —Bagumba (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
- This for your edits to Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. I could have blocked you also for that BS edit on Tom Brady. And given how many of your edits are, well, just bad and in direct violation of a whole bunch of runes and guidelines that have been patiently explained to you, the next block should be indefinite. In fact, I was this close to just skipping this step. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Drmies, How is this not indefinite? He's broken his topic ban like seven or eight times since it was given to him in April.--Jorm (talk) 02:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Jorm, that's fair, so here's a couple of reasons. First of all, I made a delicious key lime pie. Second, I'm trying to be less of an asshole that I used to be. Third, the editor is a somewhat infrequent user, and the edits were not all very recent--I really only "counted" the last two edits. Does that make sense? And really, I'm waiting for the editor to prove that NOTHERE doesn't apply. And if that makes me too much of an optimist, well then I've established my libtard credentials, haven't I? Take care, Drmies (talk) 03:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Fair.--Jorm (talk) 03:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- My topics ban was from American politics. While Supreme Court justices are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, they are not themselves politicians, do not run for office as part of any political party, are supposedly unbiased, and refrain from commenting on politics. Therefore, editing articles on Supreme Court justices is not a violation of an AP topic ban. Vinny Gambino (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- ... You do not think that Supreme Court Justices aren't covered by American Politics? I assure that they absolutely are. You are not allowed to talk about Politics in America at all.
- This reads like you knowingly violated your ban and are trying to lawyer your way out of this. What do you think, Drmies? Jorm (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Jorm, I think that when the block expires it might be a toss-up, if they continue along this path: an indef-block for WP:CIR or for DS. Vinny Gambino, in case this wasn't clear to you, and if for some reason you don't believe Jorm: yes OF COURSE they are covered by the topic ban. I mean, remember how I wrote "This for your edits to Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan"? What do you think I meant with that? Drmies (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Drmies I think it means that you simply repeated what Snooganssnoogans stated nine minutes earlier, and I'm not inclined to accept that editor's opinions at all. Ever since I started editing he or she has harassed me, doing everything possible to silence me, report me for edits this editor disagrees with, followed me all over changing my edits without explanation or reason, and inserting very biased non-neutral POV into every article that he or she touches. You take issue with my edits, which are properly cited to reliable sources (except the Brady edit), and you block me, yet you do nothing to stop prolific full-time editors like Snooganssnoogans from his or her tendentious editing. This editor makes more tendentious edits every day than I have since I started here. If you want to improve Wikipedia, deal with Snooganssnoogans. Looking at his or her long, problematic edit history, and his or her harassment of other editors, it is clear that getting Snooganssnoogans under control is long overdue. Vinny Gambino (talk) 12:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- No, I already blocked you for violating your topic ban, so maybe Snoogans is repeating me, in which case they show good judgment. You don't understand you are this close to an indefinite block, for a combination of tendentious editing, violating your topic ban, showing a lack of good judgment, personal attacks, and now also a complete lack of competence: if you don't understand that it doesn't matter how good your sources are when you are violating a topic ban, then you probably shouldn't be here at all. So this deflection is not going to work, and I think you should think really hard about what your next comment is going to be, because I'm out of patience with you. Drmies (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Drmies I think it means that you simply repeated what Snooganssnoogans stated nine minutes earlier, and I'm not inclined to accept that editor's opinions at all. Ever since I started editing he or she has harassed me, doing everything possible to silence me, report me for edits this editor disagrees with, followed me all over changing my edits without explanation or reason, and inserting very biased non-neutral POV into every article that he or she touches. You take issue with my edits, which are properly cited to reliable sources (except the Brady edit), and you block me, yet you do nothing to stop prolific full-time editors like Snooganssnoogans from his or her tendentious editing. This editor makes more tendentious edits every day than I have since I started here. If you want to improve Wikipedia, deal with Snooganssnoogans. Looking at his or her long, problematic edit history, and his or her harassment of other editors, it is clear that getting Snooganssnoogans under control is long overdue. Vinny Gambino (talk) 12:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Jorm, I think that when the block expires it might be a toss-up, if they continue along this path: an indef-block for WP:CIR or for DS. Vinny Gambino, in case this wasn't clear to you, and if for some reason you don't believe Jorm: yes OF COURSE they are covered by the topic ban. I mean, remember how I wrote "This for your edits to Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan"? What do you think I meant with that? Drmies (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- My topics ban was from American politics. While Supreme Court justices are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, they are not themselves politicians, do not run for office as part of any political party, are supposedly unbiased, and refrain from commenting on politics. Therefore, editing articles on Supreme Court justices is not a violation of an AP topic ban. Vinny Gambino (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Fair.--Jorm (talk) 03:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Jorm, that's fair, so here's a couple of reasons. First of all, I made a delicious key lime pie. Second, I'm trying to be less of an asshole that I used to be. Third, the editor is a somewhat infrequent user, and the edits were not all very recent--I really only "counted" the last two edits. Does that make sense? And really, I'm waiting for the editor to prove that NOTHERE doesn't apply. And if that makes me too much of an optimist, well then I've established my libtard credentials, haven't I? Take care, Drmies (talk) 03:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Drmies, How is this not indefinite? He's broken his topic ban like seven or eight times since it was given to him in April.--Jorm (talk) 02:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)