User talk:Flusapochterasumesch: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 19:21, 16 November 2024 editFlusapochterasumesch (talk \| contribs)393 edits →Taking the lead: ReplyTag: Reply ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 17:46, 16 December 2024 edit undoAsilvering (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators37,924 edits You have been partially blocked from certain areas of the encyclopedia.Tag: Twinkle
(23 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{ow}}
	Welcome

			== What is expected of Misplaced Pages editors ==
	==Successful vs unsuccessful==
	Hi Flusapochterasumesch, I'm sorry you found the term "successful grooming" offensive. What I meant was exactly as you say: "completion". Smyth presumably had an end in mind, beating, and grooming was the method by which he aimed to achieve it. If he was able to beat a boy, he was successful in his grooming. When I was 15 or 16 and attending that school, Smyth took me to his Morestead house on at least two occasions for his infamous Sunday lunch, and although I didn't know it at the time, he was grooming me. I found him creepy, must have indicated that to him in some way, and so he did not achieve what he wanted. He groomed me, but he was unsuccessful.

			While the community does not expect ''many'' things of Misplaced Pages editors, there are still a few expectations here. Among these expectations is that an editor will ], gain an ] of the policies and guidelines of Misplaced Pages, and always ] of their peers. ] and ] are the bedrock of discussions and cooperation on Misplaced Pages, and the policies and guidelines provide a common framework of good editorial judgement for editors to refer to in disagreements.
	On reflection, maybe I shouldn't have started editing this page at all, as I am way too close to the subject and it has made all sorts of unpleasant feelings rise to the surface. Maybe, too, I've also temporarily lost my powers of coherent and polite expression (as you seem to suggest), as I still feel so angry about it all. But when I read the page a couple of days ago it seemed to give no real idea about the extent and severity of what he did, and as I knew it would have 200,000 or so views in the proceeding days, I wanted to redress that by giving the relevant details. Best regards, ] (]) 07:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

			Your behavior on ] indicates a willful ignorance of the expectations of the community. It is creating disruption, using up time, and preventing work to improve the article from being done. I am telling you to please reconsider your actions. If you continue to be confrontational, you may be sanctioned. You have a lot of passion and energy, and I know you can be a great editor if you focused it into improving articles. Work with others, not against them. ] \| ] 00:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
	:I said I found the phrase "successfully groomed" "difficult to assimilate". Nowhere did I say it was offensive. And for you to claim that I 'seem to suggest that you've lost your powers of coherent and polite expression' is another instance of you taking an unjustified jab at me. ] (]) 14:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

			:Firstly, I've been looking through Cortador's logs and they have a clear history of troublesome behaviour and sanctions. That user repeatedly and wilfully misconstrued my comments in what I perceive to be clear but failed attempts at mockery. The way they repeatedly conflated my comments is ridiculous (in the literal sense).
	::I assumed it was what you meant with: "The extent of Smyth's crimes may never be known & it's trivial and offensive to suggest only those beaten were groomed". Maybe I should have read it more closely and not so early in the morning. The "polite" remark connects to the "offensive" one, so if that's not what you meant then my apologies. I think we both probably agree with each; either I misunderstood you, you misunderstood me, or both. No jabs given, not from my side. Regards, ] (]) 15:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
			:Secondly, Kingturtle made a mistake. They essentially told me "tut tut, go and read it again and try to understand" when it is an objective fact that they made the mistake. Have they acknowledged that yet? Not the last time I checked.
	:::Hello Ericoides,
			:Then you weigh in. Is there a WP:PILE_ON? I said already: incivility and annoyance/anger are not the same thing.
	:::Thank you for this message. I noticed after I replied earlier that I had indeed used the word 'offensive' at the foot of my 'reasons for edit' spiel - so I made an error in what I wrote earlier and I apologise for that.
			:I read the WP:ETCs that were being quoted months ago at the time of this ]. And I found the standards utterly ridiculous. That is of no importance here. Tonight I said I refused to read them and asked KingTurtle to tell me if they really stated that an article cannot state that person X has been charged by judiciary Y of crime Z. They actually don't of course. But the policy is interpreted as 'yes, that cannot be stated'. In my opinion - and I have no doubt I am not alone - the idea that Misplaced Pages feels it is inappropriate to state that a sovereign state has charged an individual with a crime is ridiculous. It is objectively ridiculous.
	:::I also think (in fact I feel sure) that we agree with one another. It's an extremely emotive topic for anyone, and much much more so for you. My anger and emotion is directed at Smyth - and I know yours is too. I don't want to pretend to understand your personal experience - it annoys me when people tell others "I know what you're going through" when they didn't experience the thing that the other person did. But I can say sincerely that in the last few days I have been doing my utmost to try to imagine the horrific trauma that Smyth (and those who directly/indirectly protected/enabled him) caused to hundreds of children and young people.
			:I wasn't proposing, or advocating for, any edits, changes or inclusions to the article. I was indirectly expressing disapproval of the WP:POLICY. It's acceptable for editors to disapprove of policies, yes? Breaching policies is not acceptable - finding policies to be ridiculous doesn't breach any policies. Yes?
	:::When I made my edit and left my 'reasons for edit' notes, I was not consciously editing any particular person's text or intending to put across my retelling of someone else's story. I've never up until now considered that making a Misplaced Pages edit (involving a change rather than an insertion) meant I was actively changing someone else's words. I've just regarded the words I am editing as Misplaced Pages's words, not those of any specific individual.
			:I said it already and I will reiterate it now - I did not, have not, and have no intention, desire or interest in editing the '''article''' with regard to accusations or charges against Luigi Mangione. I'm not sure I've even edited the article: if I have they were trivial corrections of grammar or syntax. Oh, wait, in fact I did correct the detail about the colour of his hooded top. Trivia.
	:::I've never clicked the 'revert' tab to effect a direct reversal of someone else's contribution - but I have had that done to me. The very first edit I ever made was promptly 'reverted' and it seriously annoyed me because the editor who reverted was (objectively) wrong! This is trivial, but I'll quickly give the details. I edited the phrase "fortnightly" to "fortnight-long" - it was a matter of fact that what was meant was 'something that lasted two weeks', but "fortnightly" means 'happening every two weeks'. I angrily restated my rationale and the other person (one of those folk who clearly, in my opinion, felt the page belonged to him) accepted my second correction of his error with a "stern rebuke" (that I thoroughly disregarded) for being uncivil. In my mind the incivility was on his part for blithely reverting my correct-correction without proper consideration - in other words pig-headed arrogance.
			:My only purpose in adding to the comments in Talk tonight was to draw out what I perceive to be ridiculous WP:POLICIES on not stating something so constitutionally basic as the fact that USA judiciary has charged a person with a crime.
	:::Anyway, my point is that I've only regarded someone clicking that 'revert' tab to reverse someone else's edit as a consciously personal action - whereas up until now I've regarded my edits as me changing/contradicting Misplaced Pages (a faceless digital entity).
			:You accuse me of "using up time". Rubbish. Nobody had to engage or reply. The only time I might have wasted is my own. You could very simply have ignored me - something you in particular had trouble in doing given you persistently felt the need to weigh in.
	:::That's an excessively long winded way for me to admit that when I edited the phrase "successfully groomed", I believed I was aiming my disagreement/frustration at some bytes on a data-farm somewhere, not at any individual.
			:There was never any editorial disagreement. I said already I wasn't making or advocating for any changes.
	:::But in fact, rather obviously, I now see that I was changing another human-being's words, and that person was you. And now I know that you're not simply 'some random guy online' but in fact you're a survivor of that man's psychopathic abuse.
			:How about you show me where I was confrontational or rude, instead of persistently telling me that you think this was the case? If you want to quote back to me any barbed remarks I might have made, please do so in the context of what preceded them. Do that please, instead of issuing threat after threat and being patronising and condescending to me. If I see problems with how I've expressed myself I'll happily apologise. ] (]) 01:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::If I could undo the 'reasons for edit' I left, I would leave out the word 'offensive' and stick with "difficult to assimilate". I completely get it now. I understand what you were expressing and I respect you for doing so.
			::"{{tq\|I wasn't proposing, or advocating for, any edits, changes or inclusions to the article. I was indirectly expressing disapproval of the WP:POLICY. It's acceptable for editors to disapprove of policies, yes? Breaching policies is not acceptable - finding policies to be ridiculous doesn't breach any policies. Yes?}}"
	:::I'll be completely honest - the Archbishop of Canterbury (as a role) holds no significance to me and I have no respect for whomsoever is in that role. I have no respect for churches and virtually zero respect for clergywomen or clergymen of any church or of any level of "seniority". I've never sought out anything that Welby has to say (on TV, on the news, or in written media), but I have inadvertently had to listen to or read what he has to offer. And I've always regarded him as a loathsome little man, who cosplays in silk frocks, while delivering trite platitudes to ordinary people based on no real lived-experience. Like virtually all clergy/priests (in my opinion).
	:::So when the story broke a few days ago I was angry and disgusted to see the role Welby played in enabling Smyth's abhorrent child abuse.
	:::And I was disgusted when he said he refused to resign in the face of the revelations, because he felt he had so much more good work to do. While all the time knowing that it was only a matter of days before he resigned. Which he did.
	:::I got more and more disgusted as I learned more and more about Welby's personal links to Iwerne Camps and Smyth. I was disgusted to learn that Welby went from lawyer and oil exec to Archbishop of Canterbury in no time at all. Extraordinary! I've always been disgusted by the way Welby has inserted himself into political discussions. Now I "wonder" if his political interests and his "amazing" rise from clergy-reject to AoC are at all related. Then there's the matter of Smyth being a QC. And Welby's long-term acquaintance with Smyth. And the whole thing just stinks to hell and back.
	:::I've generally considered myself fortunate and "privileged" to have been born in the UK. When I look at the lengths that so many people go to, to come to the UK and achieve UK citizenship, I've often thought the happy accident of being born here and being British. Yesterday, more than ever before, I felt a sense of revulsion at being British and started thinking about going to live somewhere else.
	:::Things like "Bishops" having seats in the House of Lords - not just the influence, but the endless money they draw down. Then there's the matter of those "Bishops" being former oil execs or child abuse apologists.
	:::On the Smyth and Iwerne pages there are people who stubbornly insist on referring to 'public school boys', and vehemently reject saying 'private school boys' - even though the latter is unambiguous and the former is perversely contradictory. Someone compromised with "public schools (i.e. private schools)" - which is accurate but also ludicrous.
	:::I must wrap up. I've been angry the last couple of days because of what I've learned about Welby, Smyth and their various establishments.
	:::Some of that anger was wrongly, unknowingly and undeliberately experienced by you. And for that I apologise sincerely, and I wish you only the best.
	:::F etc. (I've given up trying to write my username) ] (]) 22:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

			::Yes. But proposing, or advocating for, edits, changes or inclusions to the article is what an article talkpage is ''for'', and the only thing it's for. Please see ]: "The purpose of a page's associated talk page ... is to provide space for editors to discuss editing that page." Or just look at the top template on the page, with the bolded headline "'''This is the ] for discussing improvements to the ] article. This is ] for general discussion of the article's subject.'''" You're misusing ]. Please take your criticism of policies to where they're appropriate: the talkpages of the policies in question.
	== Taking the lead ==

			::Since you're misusing that page, and acknowledging it several times above (where you also state {{tq\|My only purpose in adding to the comments in Talk tonight was to draw out what I perceive to be ridiculous WP:POLICIES on not stating something so constitutionally basic as the fact that USA judiciary has charged a person with a crime}}), I was tempted to block you from editing it (block from that talkpage only, nothing else). But I'll give you this warning first, to make sure you're aware of what article talkpages are for. Please stop using the page for "indirectly expressing disapproval of the WP:POLICY" and start using it for its intended purpose. ] \| ] 15:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC).
	As the section about Harry and Meghan has been in the article for many years it should not have been removed without a prior talkpage consensus to do so. However, I will hold off adding it back to give you time (if you so wish) to open a discussion on the talkpage seeking consensus. My thoughts are that there is a clear legal trail between the statement by Harry and Meghan that their private wedding was valid and the earlier statement by ] KC that the civil wedding of Camilla and Charles was void. It runs as follows:

			== Notice ==
	* 16th century: Judges accept that the only way a marriage can be solemnised is in the presence of an Anglican priest.
	* 18th century: Parliament reaffirms that only an Anglican priest can solemnise matrimony but places certain limitations on his ability to do so, while stressing that these limitations do not affect marriages of members of the royal family.
	* 19th century: Parliament provides an avenue for people who are not members of the royal family to contract matrimony in the absence of an Anglican priest, while emphasising that members of the royal family are not permitted to take this route.
	* 20th century: The Marriage Act currently in force reiterates that any attempt by members of the royal family to marry by civil process is null and void. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.<!--Template:Discussion notice--><!--Template:ANI-notice--> ] \| ] 21:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
	:You should do as you please regarding this. I certainly don't feel any need to justify removing an entire, newly added section (the one you added earlier today). I just happened to be there at the time when it parachuted in. I read it and in my opinion it was very badly referenced (in fact barely referenced) and a lot of it was word-salad. It all came across as a bit tinfoil-hatty. If I recall correctly you were suggesting that the King and Queen weren't really the King and Queen for some obscure reason (which, on the bright side, was nothing to do with them being alien-lizard-overlords).

	:I know the same text has been yo-yoing in and out of the article recently. I've got no interest in the story you added and I won't be engaging on the topic. I think you ought to look to whoever it was that first instigated the removal of your story (or version of the same) and take it up with them. I simply saw a rather large, poorly written, addition to the status quo parachute in out of nowhere.
			:Hello, Flusapochterasumesch,
	:You're saying that the status quo was for your story to be a part of the Welby article. If you're correct then naturally you would want to add it back, and if someone else removes it you can take it up with them.
			:I see you posting your thoughts on lots of discussions on ] except for the one that you are actually involved in, ].
	:Good luck with that. ] (]) 19:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
			:Could you pause your advice-giving to other editors and instead reply to the allegations in the ANI that is about you and your editing? Thank you. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 06:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

			== December 2024 ==
			<div class="user-block uw-pblock" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid #a9a9a9; background-color: #ffefd5; min-height: 40px">]<div style="margin-left:45px">You have been ''']''' ''']''' from editing certain ] ((Article) and Talk) for ]. </div><div style="margin-left:45px">If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Misplaced Pages's ], then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx\|" code. --><code><nowiki>{{unblock\|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}</nowiki></code>.  ] (]) 17:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)</div></div><!-- Template:uw-pblock -->

Latest revision as of 17:46, 16 December 2024

Older warnings and/or other comments on this page have been removed, but are still viewable in the page history.

What is expected of Misplaced Pages editors

While the community does not expect many things of Misplaced Pages editors, there are still a few expectations here. Among these expectations is that an editor will listen to and work with others, gain an understanding of the policies and guidelines of Misplaced Pages, and always assume good faith of their peers. Civility and etiquette are the bedrock of discussions and cooperation on Misplaced Pages, and the policies and guidelines provide a common framework of good editorial judgement for editors to refer to in disagreements.

Your behavior on Talk:Killing of Brian Thompson indicates a willful ignorance of the expectations of the community. It is creating disruption, using up time, and preventing work to improve the article from being done. I am telling you to please reconsider your actions. If you continue to be confrontational, you may be sanctioned. You have a lot of passion and energy, and I know you can be a great editor if you focused it into improving articles. Work with others, not against them. Bowler the Carmine | talk 00:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, I've been looking through Cortador's logs and they have a clear history of troublesome behaviour and sanctions. That user repeatedly and wilfully misconstrued my comments in what I perceive to be clear but failed attempts at mockery. The way they repeatedly conflated my comments is ridiculous (in the literal sense).

Secondly, Kingturtle made a mistake. They essentially told me "tut tut, go and read it again and try to understand" when it is an objective fact that they made the mistake. Have they acknowledged that yet? Not the last time I checked.

Then you weigh in. Is there a WP:PILE_ON? I said already: incivility and annoyance/anger are not the same thing.

I read the WP:ETCs that were being quoted months ago at the time of this 2024 Southport stabbing. And I found the standards utterly ridiculous. That is of no importance here. Tonight I said I refused to read them and asked KingTurtle to tell me if they really stated that an article cannot state that person X has been charged by judiciary Y of crime Z. They actually don't of course. But the policy is interpreted as 'yes, that cannot be stated'. In my opinion - and I have no doubt I am not alone - the idea that Misplaced Pages feels it is inappropriate to state that a sovereign state has charged an individual with a crime is ridiculous. It is objectively ridiculous.

I wasn't proposing, or advocating for, any edits, changes or inclusions to the article. I was indirectly expressing disapproval of the WP:POLICY. It's acceptable for editors to disapprove of policies, yes? Breaching policies is not acceptable - finding policies to be ridiculous doesn't breach any policies. Yes?

I said it already and I will reiterate it now - I did not, have not, and have no intention, desire or interest in editing the article with regard to accusations or charges against Luigi Mangione. I'm not sure I've even edited the article: if I have they were trivial corrections of grammar or syntax. Oh, wait, in fact I did correct the detail about the colour of his hooded top. Trivia.

My only purpose in adding to the comments in Talk tonight was to draw out what I perceive to be ridiculous WP:POLICIES on not stating something so constitutionally basic as the fact that USA judiciary has charged a person with a crime.

You accuse me of "using up time". Rubbish. Nobody had to engage or reply. The only time I might have wasted is my own. You could very simply have ignored me - something you in particular had trouble in doing given you persistently felt the need to weigh in.

There was never any editorial disagreement. I said already I wasn't making or advocating for any changes.

How about you show me where I was confrontational or rude, instead of persistently telling me that you think this was the case? If you want to quote back to me any barbed remarks I might have made, please do so in the context of what preceded them. Do that please, instead of issuing threat after threat and being patronising and condescending to me. If I see problems with how I've expressed myself I'll happily apologise. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 01:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

"I wasn't proposing, or advocating for, any edits, changes or inclusions to the article. I was indirectly expressing disapproval of the WP:POLICY. It's acceptable for editors to disapprove of policies, yes? Breaching policies is not acceptable - finding policies to be ridiculous doesn't breach any policies. Yes?"

Yes. But proposing, or advocating for, edits, changes or inclusions to the article is what an article talkpage is for, and the only thing it's for. Please see WP:TALK: "The purpose of a page's associated talk page ... is to provide space for editors to discuss editing that page." Or just look at the top template on the page, with the bolded headline "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Killing of Brian Thompson article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." You're misusing Talk:Killing of Brian Thompson. Please take your criticism of policies to where they're appropriate: the talkpages of the policies in question.

Since you're misusing that page, and acknowledging it several times above (where you also state My only purpose in adding to the comments in Talk tonight was to draw out what I perceive to be ridiculous WP:POLICIES on not stating something so constitutionally basic as the fact that USA judiciary has charged a person with a crime), I was tempted to block you from editing it (block from that talkpage only, nothing else). But I'll give you this warning first, to make sure you're aware of what article talkpages are for. Please stop using the page for "indirectly expressing disapproval of the WP:POLICY" and start using it for its intended purpose. Bishonen | tålk 15:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC).

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bowler the Carmine | talk 21:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Flusapochterasumesch,

I see you posting your thoughts on lots of discussions on WP:ANI except for the one that you are actually involved in, Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Flusapochterasumesch reported by User:Bowler the Carmine.

Could you pause your advice-giving to other editors and instead reply to the allegations in the ANI that is about you and your editing? Thank you. Liz 06:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

December 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain namespaces ((Article) and Talk) for failure to appear at ANI. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Misplaced Pages's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. asilvering (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)