User talk:Brboyle

Welcome!

Hello, Brboyle, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jonathan Rhys Meyers may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed

Your help is needed here. Read the edit summary. We need the full references. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, please reply so we can fix it. Without proper sources it will be removed. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The content you added has been removed as unsourced. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Cover of Skyhorse's Mueller Report.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cover of Skyhorse's Mueller Report.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Important standard notice re: edits relating to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people and living or recently deceased people

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.

Template:Z33

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

Template:Z33

Making sure you are aware. Neutrality^talk 17:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make myself really clear: "perhaps you shouldn't be on Wikipedia" and "triggered, much? lol" is not engaging respectfully. If you read Wikipedia:Civility, that will become apparent to you. Let me also point you to bold, revert, discuss — you made a "bold" edit, other editors objected on policy-based grounds, and now you need to obtain consensus, rather than run roughshod over others. You are also at 3RR at the article. Neutrality^talk 17:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tear gas

If you want to discuss the use of that term in the lead, may I suggest using the talk page. Arguing through edit summaries is rarely productive - trust me, I've been down that road and I've learned. You should too. JimKaatFan (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Brboyle. You clearly edit war on this page against consensus. The discussion about the tear gas did happen already on the talk page. If you want to discuss something else, please start such discussion instead of revering. Please self-revert, or you can be reported to WP:AE or otherwise sanctioned. My very best wishes (talk) 17:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not edit warring against consensus. I am not denying that tear gas was used, I am simply trying to make it clear that it makes no sense that tear gas be mentioned in the lead instead of "riot control tactics." The lead is a summary that should try and be as all inclusive as possible. As tear gas wasn't the only tactic used why should it be singled out instead of using a more inclusive phrasing? Why don't you take it to the talk page if you feel so strongly about it. Brboyle (talk) 17:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike you, I did took it on talk page. Also note that you violated WP:3RR rule on this page today. My very best wishes (talk) 17:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Donald Trump photo-op at St. John's Church. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. —Cryptic 18:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I was not aware of the 3RR and will not do it again. Though I have been a user for a while, I only fairly recently began engaging in extensive editing on Wikipedia. I understand why I was blocked and will be sure to not do it again. The topic on which I abused the 3RR is now being discussed with civility by me and others on the talk page of the article in question. Also, due to the fact that the incident occurred over a NPOV issue I believe it should be given some leniency. Brboyle (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time. You have not adequately addressed the reason for your block.

Please see our policy on edit warring. In the event of a content dispute, editors are required to stop reverting, discuss, and seek consensus among editors on the relevant talk page. If discussions reach an impasse, editors can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution.

Points to ponder:

Edit warring is wrong even if one is right.

Any arguments in favor of one's preferred version should be made on the relevant talk page and not in an unblock appeal.

Calling attention to the faults of others is never a successful strategy; one must address one's own behavior.

To be unblocked, you must affirm an understanding of all of this, and what not to do, and what to do when in a content dispute. Please tell us, in your own words, what it all means. Thanks, --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 19:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Brboyle, I don't think that you can really say that you are discussing the issue "with civility" at article talk when, just a short while ago, you told a different user (My very best wishes) that "Your reply here just shows you are not interested in NPOV." Do you think that constitutes civil discussion? Neutrality^talk 18:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So now I can't have opinions? I didn't feel that his comments were really showing that he wanted to follow the NPOV and I thoroughly explained why i felt that way. I do feel that constitutes a civil discussion because having a civil discussion doesn't mean that everyone agrees with the majority opinion and you, an administrator on Wikipedia should understand that. But then again maybe you don't because going to someone's talk page and harassing them/giving them attitude about their Wikipedia-granted right to dispute a 24 hour block doesn't seem very civil, either. Brboyle (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're entitled to your opinions; you're entitled to have a minority opinion; you're not entitled to use talk space to personalize disputes or call into question the motives of other editors. Neutrality^talk 18:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm sorry if he was offended by my comments because they were not intended to be offensive. I wasn't saying that in an attempt to personalize the dispute but rather in an attempt to offer my side of the story and show how I Was looking at it differently. Could you point me to Wikipedia policy that states what you said about "personalize disputes or call into question the motives of other editors"? It seems that you and others are doing the same thing to me does it not? You stalked my talk page to harass me about the reason I disputed my block and when I was making edits on the article in question I was accused of intentionally not following NPOV and a "blatant NPOV violation by an editor pushing his view that tear gas wasn't used "because the park police said so" which is completely misrepresenting my intentions and calling into question my motivations, something you are saying is against the rules. Also, regarding the talk page. How do you think that the article should deal with the Park Police's report about the protests? Based on the NPOV it has to be mentioned its just an issue of how much weight it should be given. How would you reword "according to Park Police, were throwing projectiles in the park. However, most all media outlets say they were demonstrating peacefully." in order to better reflect how you believe the NPOV should function. Also, why do we even need an adjective to describe the protesters in the lead? Adjectives like "peaceful" or the alternative "unruly" call into the question the motives of the protesters which is something discussed in the article as being up for debate. Why is it so important to everyone that the lead use an adjective to describe the protesters, especially one that is being disputed by a source. Does it really matter if the its a primary or secondary/majority or minority opinion. Shouldn't the lead try and be as impartial as possible and leave it up to the rest of the article to bring into question the weight regarding the sources. Brboyle (talk) 19:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, no one was offended. But it does matter a lot if the demonstration was or was not peaceful. In fact, this changes everything. I am sure you understand this. Please also note this.My very best wishes (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]