User talk:Angrycommguy

Problems with upload of File:729th Air Control Squadron patch.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:729th Air Control Squadron patch.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:InContact Logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:InContact Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief 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.

Funcrunch (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

552d Air Control Group moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to 552d Air Control Group. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Those editors who grind axes or show an obsession with the genitalia of non-binary or trans people almost inevitably end up blocked from editing Wikipedia. I encourage caution. Cullen328 (talk) 10:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm not trying to do that but can see your point. My issue was with "they" being used in the same sentence that discussed two groups and a person that used "they" pronouns. It was super confusing, I edited it to reference names where possible to clear up confusion I and others were experiencing.

That article is a hot mess. I think I'm just going to walk away from it and take your advice and let the dust settle on that one. Much appreciated. Angrycommguy (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You disregarded my advice and ended up page blocked. Unsurprising. Cullen328 (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many apologies. I let my emotion get the best of me. Angrycommguy (talk) 01:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Snokalok (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m happy to help in any way I can. I believe the user Snokalok has been targeting any effort I made in the article to try and clarify who was being discussed. My edits that were targeted without justification of policy were simply to clarify the individual the arrival was about was the topic or if a group was being discussed when using the word “they” and to follow the style of the rest of the article and other articles. The subjects name should be used to avoid confusion rather than pronouns, especially when the pronouns they/their are in use. These edits were not in malice but to clarify the subject in the applicable sentence/paragraph. In fact throughout the rest of the article I left the use of they and their when referring to the individual when there was no confusion.

It is my strong belief that I was being targeted by Snokalok because of a disagreement about another topic in the talk section. Even user @Sideswipe9th questioned the validity of Snokalok’s persistent undos on this matter. If I’m to be punished in any form then Snokalok should face the same consequence as they were doing just the same as myself.

I want the admin team to know I was just trying to clarify who was being discussed in the article as the use of pronouns causes much confusion and was inconsistent with other articles and style of Wikipedia. Angrycommguy (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:NOTTHEM 208.87.236.202 (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for disruptive editing, SYNTH/OR, and IDHT, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia certain pages (Death of Nex Benedict and Talk:Death of Nex Benedict).

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.

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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."

I will be willing to consider an unblock request when you can demonstrate you understand and will follow WP:BLPPRIVACY, MOS:GENDERID, WP:PRIMARY, and WP:OR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @ScottishFinnishRadish I let my emotions get the best of me even after I promised @Cullen328 to move on. Quite frankly I'm embarrassed that I let it happen. I felt like Snokalok was targeting me and my edits trying to antagonize me on the page and let it get to me, I should have been the bigger person and I let you and myself down. I wanted to thank you and Cullen328 for giving me what is essentially a third chance and wanted to personally apologize to you both and let you know it will not happen again. If it does, please do perma-ban me, but I assure you it won't happen again as I plan to just stick to my boring military and history articles along with the clean-up I like doing. I hope you both have a good weekend and sorry for any stress I caused you and the admin team. Thanks for all that you do.

-Kertis Angrycommguy (talk) 01:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing boring at all about history, it's my go to subject here most times I edit anymore. I've been in a similar position and I personally prefer staying away from those contentious areas now. Here is to wishing you success in those other areas, I'd avoid this one and that crowd until you reestablish your bona fides. FWIW the apology above coupled with follow through is all we can ask of any editor in my humble opinion. If there is anyway I can help you (I'm not admin, I'm an editor like you), I'd sure like to try. Unbroken Chain (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks that really means a lot. In hindsight there is a lot of toxicity in those sorts of articles all around and I'll be joining you in staying away from them. Just like with history we learn best from our mistakes. Cheers @Unbroken Chain! Angrycommguy (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: 552d Air Control Group has been accepted

552d Air Control Group, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Unbroken Chain (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]