User talk:ViriiK

"banned"

We can pick it up here then. You are banned from this talk page for a period of 30 days. If you violate the ban I will report you, and I assure you that the admins take these sorts of userpage bans very seriously. After the 30 days has expired the ban will automatically expire. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

A news article you say? Are you sure? So her statement which appears to contradict the byline doesn't seem to faze you at all and that being corroborated by Tapper? It's also a big issue when he states "Guess it's hard to turn off the gaslighting switch". That's editorializing. This editorializing article came on the 23rd right after Jake Tapper's confirmation which was on the 22nd which they completely disregarded Jake Tapper, the person who wanted to ensure safety of everyone involved. Why skip over Tapper then? Right, because you can easily find articles that attacks the Loesch. Twitchy unfortunately highlights the tweets from Jake Tapper in question but we know you are not going to accept that as a source. ViriiK (talk) 00:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DrFleischman By the way, I find it highly amusing that you decided to jump the shark to banning from your user page despite WP:TPG suggesting nothing that backs you up on this. For example you misrepresented what I said and when you made an insinuation that I supposedly thought you were a Loesch hater when I said nothing of the sort. Since I can find no policy that backs you up on banning me from your talk page, I'm going to comment here on my own talk page and link you to send you a notification to discuss the contentious material in question. Mikist4, TheTBirdusThoracis are free to join to discuss this. ViriiK (talk) 01:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, where did he ban you? The conversation in the talk section? TheTBirdusThoracis (talk) 01:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He banned me from his own talk page although Wikipedia says that's generally not a good idea if one was not abusive. So I respect his "ban" and pinged him here which obviously he's ignoring. ViriiK (talk) 02:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also on his talk page, he made snide remarks about my caps lock supposedly being broken although it was obvious I was emphasizing specific words and he also interjected things I didn't say. ViriiK (talk) 02:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Loesch edit war article under DS

You have been mentioned at AN/I. – Lionel^(talk) 02:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re Dana Loesch you have been reported to WP:ANEW

Re Dana Loesch you have been reported to WP:ANEW. – Lionel^(talk) 02:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lionelt, it's been a while since I've come across this. Do I do anything or just watch the entire thing passively? ViriiK (talk) 02:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're good. Nothing to worry about. – Lionel^(talk) 04:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While that post-1932 thing was posted on my timeline, I thought it was a joke that he would use it especially when he threatened me with getting me banned so I took it with a grain of salt especially which I thought given my past experiences with Wikipedia that made it very unlikely. Now that I read more into it, previously I thought that WP:BLP would give me leeway on this. ViriiK (talk) 04:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

, I've been following the ANEW conversation. Does this mean that he inappropriately applied the DS against me? With this [1], I feel that he's trying to shutdown any debate and let his edit go unopposed by trying to scare me into thinking I may get banned. ViriiK (talk) 04:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lionelt, do you have any input into the RfC here? ViriiK (talk) 00:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Loesch

I'm not following what you are trying to say here: [2]. Did you compare what happened to Dana to the Holocaust? Please help me understand. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

K.e.coffman God no, of course not. The document documenting the discussion is how we know about the Wannsee Conference. ViriiK (talk) 02:43, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The point I'm trying to make is that one single article that supposedly accuses her of making up the whole thing although we know that the primary sources dispute that entirely. And Wikipedia's standard for sources is high that we can't consider other sources that obvious debunks that claim. It's a really stupid comparison I was making to Wannsee, I know. It's just something I couldn't really compare to anything else. ViriiK (talk) 02:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. You might want to consider removing the reference to the Wannsee Conference from the Talk page. It's confusing and comes across as rather odd. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done thank you. I was a moron bringing that up. ViriiK (talk) 02:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question!

DrFleischman Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. Since you deployed a DS on me for an article that was not under DS by an admin, does that mean you were not exercising WP:AGF? Especially when you threatened to get me banned from Wikipedia if I talked further on your talk page? ViriiK (talk) 05:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not ping me again. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So I was correct then. You were not exercising WP:AGF then. Got it. ViriiK (talk) 07:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ViriiK! Questions about the “Ds Alert”? I wrote a quick & dirty FAQ—check it out here. If you have any questions about policies or editing or anything else just ask me on my talk page :-) – Lionel^(talk) 06:46, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your email

Hello ViriiK,

There is no need to be concerned. We operate by consensus not by the wishes of an individual editor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328 Now he's being flippant about moving section away because he's intentionally ignoring me despite the fact that I have been consistently truthful in every one of the edits. ViriiK (talk) 23:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that you stay calm. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Goosfraba. ViriiK (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, ViriiK. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello regarding your edit USS Guadalcanal LPH7

   Hello   Several years ago I made an entry on the page at Wikipedia for The USS Guadalcanal LPH7. I was a crew member aboard the ship when the incident with the generator switchboard and losing electrical loads happened. I was actually a first aid man on a stretcher bearer crew that was involved in the rescue of several of the ship's engineering department from the area below deck where the generator switchboards had overheated. I was also, earlier in the day on the bridge of The Guadalcanal as we set the record for the fastest speed that ship had ever traveled which was 28 knots. I know you're not going to find a reference of the speed record or the switchboard problem but it all happened and it was an incident and The GUAD did set a RECORD that day. I KNOW because I was THERE. It's too bad that a former Navy Vateran can't post what happened on the ship he was on just to have it removed because some "official" site doesn't reference it.   DaveCinSL (talk) 08:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]